Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Leavers (Illiteracy)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the illiteracy rate among school leavers.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Evidence collected by my Department's assessment of performance unit suggests that very few 15-year-olds are unable to read or write a single word, but that some have difficulty with fairly simple reading and writing tasks. The national curriculum will help to raise standards of literacy at all levels, through the introduction of attainment targets in English. The national assessment arrangements will in due course provide information on the language capabilities of 16-year-olds.

Mr. Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and for the improvement that we expect through the use of assessment and the national curriculum. However, what is my hon. Friend's response to the many personnel managers who are dissatisfied with the current level of literacy among school leavers?

Mrs. Rumbold: We accept that there are still some inadequacies in literacy attainment, which is one of the very good reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has introduced a national curriculum to tackle immediately the problem confronting some employers.

Mr. Boyes: Should we not have more teachers with special responsibilities for dealing with such children? That would need cash. It is clear from the written answer given by the Secretary of State on 8 February—it appears in columns 51–52 of Hansard—that he plans cuts in cash for special and secondary schools to the end of the decade and that there will be only about 1 per cent. growth in the sums available for primary schools. Given that the Secretary of State will not put the necessary money into the service, it is no wonder that some of our children leave school illiterate.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is clearly not aware that the grant given to the adult and literacy skills unit has been increased from £0·5 million in 1980–81 to more than £2 million in the current financial year. That is a substantial increase, which will contribute to solving literacy problems.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a direct relationship between indiscipline in schools and illiteracy? What action might she be able to take to improve discipline in our schools, particularly in the light of the recent Professional Association of Teachers survey showing that violence and indiscipline have been growing substantially?

Mrs. Rumbold: Clearly, if we are to tackle the literacy problem in our schools in the long term, we must work towards breaking the cycle affecting a proportion of the weaker pupils with literacy difficulties. It is, indeed, an inadequate foundation, which catches some of the children least able to withstand indiscipline in school. Therefore, the PAT report was of great importance. We must establish discipline in the classroom so that weaker children can learn and therefore benefit from the introduction of the national curriculum.

Education Reform

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to publish his proposed amendments to the Education Reform Bill regarding charges for school activities.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I shall be announcing the outcome of our consultations later this week, and would hope to table new clauses next week.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that extra charges would fall particularly heavily on one-parent families, especially charges for field courses and arts and music courses? In his reply, will he dwell on the city technology colleges, which will find it extremely difficult to give their pupils what they need?

Mr. Baker: The Government will not be imposing charges but will allow schools to charge for extras if they wish. [Interruption.] This problem was brought to our attention by the local education authorities, which asked us to find a way through and particularly to protect them in their present practices. Before Opposition Members laugh too much, I remind them that many authorities controlled by the Labour party and the alliance charge for extras at the moment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that schools have always charged for certain activities, such as home economics, field trips and materials for woodwork and handicraft, as well as for skiing trips and so on? Is it not now necessary to make that practice legal, and is that not what Labour, Liberal and Conservative authorities want?

Mr. Baker: That is exactly the position, and I believe that my proposals, which will be published later this week—we have already discussed them with local authority associations—will be widely welcomed. I can confirm that, as my hon. Friend said, since the 1944 Act it has been the practice for authorities to charge for certain extra activities.

Mr. Fatchett: When the Minister of State said in the Standing Committee on the Education Reform Bill on 28 January that opt-out schools would be able to use parental contributions to employ additional teachers, was that a clear statement of Government policy? If so, does the Secretary of State realise that those contributions will


become less and less voluntary and that opt-out schools will become fee-paying schools, which will be even more divisive than the Government's current proposals?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish. We have made it clear in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that grant-maintained schools will not be allowed to charge fees. They can certainly attract voluntary contributions, as can, and do, schools in the state-maintained sector. I should emphasise that our objectives in clarifying this policy are to preserve the principle of free education, to clarify the law and to safeguard current valuable provision.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the need for an early statement — which I would welcome — arose because it was hoped that the Government would make it clear that parents on income support and family credit will be exempt from such voluntary charges, particularly for field trips and so on?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend will see, when I announce the changes later this week, that we shall be covering that matter specifically. Should schools wish to continue to make charges for field trips, there must be remission arrangements for children whose parents are on family support.

Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Committee of Vice Chancellors and of Principals; and what subjects he discussed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): My right hon. Friend addressed the Committee on 30 October on matters concerned with the Government's higher education policy.

Mr. Darling: Did the Minister discuss the 20 per cent. reduction in funding for Scottish universities over the past four years, compared with a reduction of only 13 per cent. for England? Did he discuss the implications of that on the ability of universities to contract to provide courses under the new system of funding? More important, did he discuss the future viability of the four-year honours degree in Scotland, which is the envy of the academic world? What will he do about this attack on Scottish education?

Mr. Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the University Grants Committee is a national organisation and it pursues a policy at arm's length from the Government. The distribution of funds between the different institutions in the United Kingdom is a matter to be determined by the University Grants Committee. Last year we increased expenditure on universities at the central level by 10 per cent., and this year it will increase by 8·2 per cent.

Mr. Rhodes James: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the proposed amendments by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relating to higher education. Does this not show the value of consultation? Is it not nice to know that occasionally sanity can prevail?

Mr. Jackson: Sanity has always prevailed. The Government listen to what is said during debates in the Standing Committee and outside, and they respond to

that. We have responded with amendments to other parts of the Bill, and we are so responding in respect of the clauses that will be debated this afternoon.

Mr. Ashdown: The amendments — details of which have not yet been announced—may deal with academic freedom. The Government claim that they are not increasing their powers, but, under the present proposals, are they not abolishing a 70-year-old convention not to intervene and replacing it with specific powers to intervene on a day-by-day basis? How can the Minister square that with the claim that the Education Reform Bill is about freedom? Is it not about the iron fist of central control? Is it not about the imposition of control on universities, which is a constitutional violation?

Mr. Jackson: This is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman is offering us a travesty of the true position, which is that, with regard to the balance of power between central Government and the institutions, the proposals contained in the Education Reform Bill make no difference in substance between what is already established in the case of the UGC and what is proposed for the Universities Funding Council. There is no impact, either positive or negative, on that balance; it merely sustains the old arrangements on a new footing.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss in Committee the subject of the money raised by the universities? Will he make it abundantly clear that universities such as the University of Lancaster, which has raised up to £3 million of its own funding, will not find my hon. Friend or any of his successors being able to dictate what they do with such money? Will that be clearly expressed in the Bill?

Mr. Jackson: The University of Lancaster and all universities are to be congratulated on their successful efforts to diversify funding. It has never been the Government's intention that the universities should be held to account for the money that they have raised under their own steam. My right hon. Friend will make a statement this afternoon in which he will say that the Government intend to make that clear beyond doubt in the legislation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that there is considerable concern in all Scottish universities that have four-year degrees, in places such as Keele in England and in other colleges of higher education that have four-year degrees, that they will lose as a result of the new method of bidding for funding? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government do not intend any of those four-year degree courses to lose out?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have no views or policy on the academic policy of institutions. The four-year degree in Scotland is to be decided by the Scottish universities and the UGC. Expenditure on students in Scotland is one third higher than the level in England and Wales. That is the extent to which we recognise the importance and value of the four-year degree in Scotland.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the University of Southampton has done well in co-operating with industry on research and development? At the moment all seems calm, but people who have written to me from the university—several times—have expressed three fears. They are concerned, first, about the Secretary


of State's ability to appoint the Universities Funding Council, secondly, about the interest charges on spending, and thirdly—we must kill this fear—that they will lose some of their independence.

Mr. Jackson: We do not believe that the proposals in the Bill compromise the independence of universities or polytechnics; rather, they enhance the independence of the polytechnics. For universities, the position is neutral as between the existing arrangements and the proposed ones. Appointments to the Universities Funding Council will be made by the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as he appoints members of the UGC now.
As regards possible interest charges and repayments, the basic principle underlying the Government's thinking is that money is provided by the Universities Funding Council to the institutions to do certain things. If it becomes apparent that the resources have been misallocated, the issue of what should be done about that will arise, and the Government are thinking seriously about it.

Primary Schools (Pupil Costs)

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil in primary schools (a) in England as a whole and (b) in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available: and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79, at constant prices.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Local education authorities in England spent an average of £690 per primary pupil in 1978–79 and £815 per primary pupil in 1985–86. The comparable figures for Staffordshire are £695 and £815.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show an impressive increase in expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Staffordshire and the whole of England since the Government came to office? How can the Labour party justify claims of cuts in education under this Government, either in Staffordshire or in the rest of the country?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. Between 1978–79 and 1985–86 expenditure per pupil rose nationally by 19 per cent. and is currently at its best ever level. Opposition Members never acknowledge that improvement.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Under-Secretary acknowledge that it is a Labour authority that has provided those good educational standards despite restraints on spending by central Government?

Mr. Dunn: I acknowledge that it is a Labour authority — I wish it were not. I remind the House that Government plans for local authorities current expenditure in 1988–89 represent an increase in cash of nearly 8 per cent. over the plans for the current year. I am extremely proud of that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Labour-controlled authority is reorganising primary education in Burntwood in my constituency? Before my hon. Friend approves any of those proposals, will he ensure that he is satisfied that the complaints of the parents that the accommodation proposed by Staffordshire county council is inadequate will be taken into account?

Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a legal duty to examine the proposals for closure and the arguments for and against. I am grateful for the fact that in the past my hon. Friend has brought deputations to see me. Their views, as well as those of the authority, will be carefully taken into account before my right hon. Friend makes a decision.

Mrs. Clwyd: Why do the Minister and his colleagues continue to deceive us? Is it not a fact that since 1979 central Government spending has been cut by 20 per cent. in real terms, and that in that time it is the much maligned local authorities that have increased their spending by 8 per cent.? It is those authorities, not the Secretary of State and the Government, that have protected our schools.

Mr. Dunn: That question was much laboured, if I might use that word. The Government's strong record is supported, not only in cash terms, but by other objective standards. For example, the overall pupil-teacher ratio on January 1987 was 17·3:1 compared to 18·9:1 in January 1979. Average class sizes have been improving in primary and secondary schools and there are now far fewer classes with more than 30 pupils.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the figures for Staffordshire and England as a whole compare with those for ILEA? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the effectiveness of the last figure?

Mr. Dunn: I do not have all day to do that, but my hon. Friend is right to point out the massive difference between expenditure levels in ILEA and even the more extreme Labour authorities out in the country. The reasons for abolition are quite clear.

First Division Association

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the First Division Association branch of his Department.

Mrs. Rumbold: No, Sir.

Ms. Armstrong: I am pleased that that answer suggests that the Government have got over their slight problem with First Division Association on the stand at the Ideal Home exhibition. Is the Minister aware that parents in my constituency will not benefit from any of that wonderful information — I understand that it will cost at least £30,000—because they will not be able to afford to go to the Ideal Home exhibition? They would much rather see that sort of expense put into the schools to ensure that their children have books. If the Minister is interested, I could give her many more effective and cheaper ways to communicate with parents.

Mrs. Rumbold: We hope that parents who have access to the Ideal Home exhibition will benefit from the information that will be disseminated there. I should make it perfectly clear that that information about the rights of parent governors is to do with the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Parents in the hon. Lady's constituency will also receive information and leaflets, which will be distributed to all parents at all the schools.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that concern has been expressed among the members of the FDA about the so-called efficiency payments that are now paid in the


Department to high education officials? Can she tell the House who decides to whom those payments will be made, and how does she distinguish them from straight political patronage?

Mrs. Rumbold: There is no question of political patronage. These matters are properly decided within the association and its general negotiating circumstances. It does not come anywhere near Ministers.

Secondary Education (Cumbria)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in the county of Cumbria.

Mr. Dunn: No, Sir.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the future of secondary education, particularly Catholic secondary education, in my constituency is now being prejudiced directly as a result of the cuts that the Government are imposing on Cumbria county council's education budget? Does the Minister understand that people are getting angry? Is it not true that the Government are pressing the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make attacks on the clergy as part of a campaign to undermine the truly independent position of the Church in Britain?

Mr. Dunn: I thought that the question was about secondary education in Cumbria. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Cumbria received a prescribed capital allocation for schools of £4·651 million in 1988–89. That was a generous allocation and represented 83·3 per cent. of the county councils plans, compared with the national average of 47·2 per cent. That is rough treatment indeed.

Postgraduate Training and Research

Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what study he has made of the trends in the number of British students of high ability wishing to do postgraduate training and research; and in what subjects he sees cause for concern because of poor career prospects.

Mr. Jackson: Institutions are responsible for the provision of and recruitment to postgraduate courses. Overall, however, the recruitment of British students in 1986 compared with 1980 was 6·6 per cent. higher on full-time courses and almost 28 per cent. higher on part-time courses.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that despite his answer, there are many young, outstanding scientists in Britain who are deterred from undertaking postgraduate research or who go abroad to do that research because of the poor career prospects in Britain? Does he agree with Sir David Philips, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, that we are in great danger of falling behind our foreign competitors in terms of industrial development because of the Government's failure properly to invest in civil research? Will the Government ever understand the close connection between Government-backed investment and industrial development?

Mr. Jackson: I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the numbers of postgraduates in science have

increased by one third since 1979. As for his observations about Government expenditure on civil research and development, an examination of the proportion of the national product invested in civil research and development by Governments makes it clear that we spend more than the United States and Japan.

Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend confirm that as our economy picks up and our manufacturing industry expands throughout Britain the opportunities for students to move into engineering and manufacturing disciplines have never been better?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The recruitment of graduates and postgraduates into a wide range of occupations is flourishing. That is confirmed by all the statistics relating to graduate and postgraduate recruitment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the proportion of well-qualified students with first-class honours and good second-class honours who are failing to get research funds has steadily increased during the past few years?

Mr. Jackson: I shall have to look into the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted, and I shall certainly come back to him on that point. The resources made available by central Government for science have risen by 15 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and by 1·5 per cent. in the past year.

Education Reform

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the cost implications of the Education Reform Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Many of the responses we have received have commented on the resource aspects. All representations, except those from individuals, are deposited in the Library.

Mr. Greenway: I recognise that spending per pupil has increased considerably under the Government and that we have substantial resources for the implementation of the GCSE, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Government education initiatives will depend on adequate resources being made available for the national curriculum and for the delegation of school budgets? Will he assure the House and parents that those popular policies will be properly financed?

Mr. Baker: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Government are providing £150 million over the next three years specifically to help to implement the national curriculum proposed in the Education Reform Bill, which is now being considered in Committee, and to introduce CTCs. Substantial resources are also available for education support grants. It is important that such reforms should be financed properly. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the national curriculum will be phased in over a number of years.

Mr. Madden: What particular aspects of the Education Reform Bill does the Secretary of State think will benefit schools in places such as inner-city Bradford?

Mr. Baker: Specifically, the national curriculum. There is no doubt about that. The emphasis on basic skills in the


national curriculum, the delegation of budgets to school heads, and the greater responsibility for head teachers and governors are all policies that are not only popular, but are to be supported by all the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues upstairs.

Mr. Baldry: Is not the key part of the Education Reform Bill its proposals for local financial management, and have not these proposals been welcomed by every major teachers union? Will they not ensure that money is spent more cost-effectively and responsibly, according to the wishes of head teachers, parents and governors?

Mr. Baker: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. In those schools which already have delegated budgets the general pattern has been that money has been spent more effectively. Money has been saved and spent on the sharp end of teaching on extra facilities of one sort or another. These proposals are fundamental and important and will be introduced in the course of the next three or four years. They will certainly lead to greater efficiency and more cost-effectiveness.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is it not a disgrace that Edinburgh university—as revealed by the former admissions officer, Mrs. Ann McGuckin — discriminates against Scottish working-class youngsters in favour of deadbeats from English public schools with inferior qualifications? Is that not something that the Minister should consider? We speak about Victorian values, but is that not unacceptable to the majority of Scottish people?

Mr. Baker: I know of no discrimination against Scottish applicants going to Scottish universities. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome applications from English children. I am sure that many English children will benefit enormously from a Scottish education.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a national curriculum will lead to curriculum-led staffing and the removal of the previous system whereby teachers were produced for non-existent subjects, and that that will itself lead to the saving of cash and the better deployment of teachers?

Mr. Baker: Certainly there will be a need to retrain some teachers. A concentration of subjects is implicit within the national curriculum and there will be some need to redeploy and retrain teachers in the foundation subjects. I agree that that will lead to the better redeployment of many teachers in our schools.

Mr. Fatchett: Is it not the case that over the next three years, according to DES figures, only £67 million will be spent as a direct result of the Education Reform Bill, and that money will be spent on developing assessment procedures and the work of the Schools Council in terms of the national curriculum? How much money will be spent in the classroom and on each individual child? Or will the Government's reforms simply be paid for by local authorities so that, yet again, the Government will not foot the bill for our children's education?

Mr. Baker: No. Schemes of assessment and testing, and their moderation, will be paid for from Government funds. We are providing £9 million to help polytechnics to become independent, and another substantial sum for the CTCs, which are part of the Education Reform Bill.

Mr. Salmond: Do we take it from the Secretary of State's apparent denial that there is bias against Scottish-qualified applicants to Edinburgh university that he has read the allegations referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown)?

Mr. Baker: I have seen the allegations, but there is little in them. The Government do not influence the admission procedures of various universities. They are a matter for the universities. It does little good to besmirch the reputation of such a great university as Edinburgh.

Children (Assessment Tests)

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it is the Government's intention to publish the results of assessment tests for children aged seven years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Baker: The task group on assessment and testing has recommended that schools should not be required to publish aggregated national assessment results for seven-year-old pupils, but should be allowed to do so if they wish. I shall be considering this in the consultations that will be taking place on the task group's report.

Mrs. Mahon: I am glad that the Minister is considering further the testing of seven-year-olds, but could he also consider further the testing of 11 and 14-year-olds? Does he not realise how divisive this is, and that for seven-year-olds particularly it will lead to cramming and competition in schools, quite unnecessarily?

Mr. Baker: I shall send the hon. Lady a copy of the report, because it simply does not bear out what she says about assessment and testing at the ages between 11 and 14 being divisive. It recommends a system of assessment and testing at ages seven, 11, 14 and 16 and that at 11, 14 and 16 the results should be published so that parents and the whole of the local community may know how the schools are doing. I do not believe that that is divisive. I think that it will improve standards.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the protests against assessment and testing are rather bogus, as teachers have been doing this at every age ever since teaching started, and that it is vitally necessary if we are to have a correct diagnosis of children's problems?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend, who I believe was a teacher, is absolutely right. There is a great deal of testing and assessment going on in schools, because one has to assess and test the ability of children at certain ages to know what should be their next course of studies. This has been well established and practised. We intend in the future to regularise it and make it a much more open process.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister not realise that the mentality of "Friday morning is test morning" has long since disappeared, because it was useless, and that in our primary schools, especially with young children, a continuous assessment programme goes on all the time? The children are thoroughly assessed, and this is a crude intrusion coming from the most backward of the Right wing of the Tory Government.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman could not have been in a school recently. If he had, he would know that already about 75 per cent. of primary schoolchildren are tested in


English. There are five or six well-established tests. In mathematics, there are about nine established tests. The hon. Gentleman really ought to find out what is happening in the schools.

Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is considerable anxiety in the schools as to how rigid this process is going to be? Can he say that there will be a distinction between the assessment that will be required in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science and what I hope will be the broader approach to the rest of the national curriculum?

Mr. Baker: I cannot quite give that undertaking to my hon. Friend, because the whole purpose of the national curriculum is to establish attainment targets for the whole range of academic subjects, beyond English, mathematics and science—foreign languages, history, geography and technology. Technology is particularly important. One of the important changes that we are making is that in future every boy and girl will have to take science and technology up to the age of 16. That must be right.

Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the public have a right to know how the schools are doing. I agree with him. In order to achieve that, his junior Minister promised in Committee that the Government would consider the proposal that when tests were published social and economic factors would be taken into account. Will he now give an undertaking that the Government, in putting forward their proposals for publishing tests, will require social and economic factors to be taken into account?

Mr. Baker: The task group recommended that the assessments and tests should be published as they appear, undoctored, but that at the same time there should be for each school a statement about its socio-economic background so that those who studied the results could take into account the social mix of the children. It did not recommend that the assessments and results should be doctored in some way. Various universities try to do that, but it does not work at all well.

Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the tests at age seven are diagnostic they will be widely welcomed by parents, particularly if he undertakes to provide the additional resources to make certain that the results of the diagnosis are applied to the children in their subsequent education, so that those with disabilities get more attention and those with great gifts get the right attention?

Mr. Baker: I would say yes to my hon. Friend. One of the purposes of assessments and tests is to diagnose how a child is doing, to determine whether a child of seven can decipher a page of writing. If a child of seven cannot decipher a page of writing, he will be in some trouble. By determining that, one can determine the next course of study. As I have already said, we are making substantial resources available in the education system to ensure that this can take place. The increase in expenditure this year is 8·2 per cent.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the view of Professor Black and other authorities is that publishing results of seven-year-olds' assessments is highly undesirable? Why does he refuse to support that view? Does he agree with the punitive approach recommended

by his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) that failures, even at the age of seven, should spend their summer holidays at school?

Mr. Baker: It is no purpose of the system of assessment and testing to stigmatise failure at an early age—none whatsoever. I can assure the hon. Lady of what I have said. We shall consider the recommendation very carefully. Professor Black said, "Do not publish, but schools can be allowed to publish." That might be a suitable way of dealing with it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill, in response to an intervention by our hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), he made it clear that schools would not be forced to publish the results of assessments of seven-year-olds? In the light of that, does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) should read Hansard before putting questions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Baker: I hope that all hon. Members avidly read Hansard all the time. I think that it is an excellent thing to do. It is very clear that we find some favour in Professor Black's proposal. Perhaps I should emphasise that we have been talking about the publication of results, which does not involve the individual results of children. In no way will it be possible to find out how a particular child is doing. That information will be restricted to the teacher, the parents and the child.

Children (Special Education Needs)

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the number of people training to teach children with special education needs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dunn: Our policy is to maintain the supply of specialist teachers of children with special education needs.

Mr. Fisher: Why does special education merit only one clause of three lines in the Education Reform Bill? Is that an indication of how seriously the Government take children with special education needs? If the Minister cares about special education, what additional resources and staff will he provide to address the important special education needs of children?

Mr. Dunn: If the hon. Member bothered to read the proceedings of the Committee, he would notice that the Committee has spent a great deal of time dealing with the problems of children with special education needs. The Government have accepted a number of changes that will improve the position of such children under the Education Reform Bill.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister consult his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that there is adequate provision for children with special education needs, because our teachers are trained in England?

Mr. Dunn: I thank the hon. Member for that helpful point.

Education Reform

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from rural areas about open enrolment; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Rumbold: A number of the responses to the Department's consultation document, "Admission of Pupils to Maintained Schools", and some of the letters received from groups and individuals, have raised issues relating to education in rural areas.

Mr. Haselhurst: Can my hon. Friend offer an assurance to parents living in a village which has a popular school that their child will be able to go to that school, even though it may attract pupils from other parts of the district?

Mrs. Rumbold: The criteria for admission to schools will remain very much as they are at present. That is to say, they will relate to where the children live, whether there are brothers and sisters in that school, and the distances to be travelled, so I think I can offer my hon. Friend the assurance he requires.

State Schools (Rural Areas)

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement of his policy towards state schools in rural areas.

Mrs. Rumbold: It is the responsibility of local education authorities to provide a proper service to rural as well as to other areas. My right hon. Friend is currently supporting a number of projects, including some in Norfolk, designed to identify ways of enriching the curriculum of rural primary schools. Any proposal for the closure of a rural school which comes before my right hon. Friend is considered very carefully in the light of the criteria set out in the Department's circular 3/87, which makes it clear that size alone is not a criterion for closure.

Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend reiterate her support for small rural schools and, above all, for the crucial role that they play in conserving the fabric of many rural communities? Is she also aware that some rural schools would like to opt out under the Secretary of State's proposals and that it would be unfortunate if they were precluded from doing so by too high a limit being set?

Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for those words. Of course, the Government are anxious to preserve those schools which are excellent, particularly those in small rural areas. We are well aware of the role that they play. However, we have to consider other criteria besides the fondness of parents for small schools, and these include education criteria.

Education Reform

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect the Education Reform Bill will have on units concerned with special education attached to county and voluntary schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dunn: There is no specific provision in the Bill relating to such units.

Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister agree that, due to the opting-out possibility included in the Education Reform Bill, special units will suffer because education authorities will not take the risk of those schools opting out and will not put resources into those particular units?

Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to consider any applications for schools to become grant-maintained schools and to have grant-maintained status he will consider all the arguments for and against such opting out.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Gill: In the light of the Brussels agreement, will my right hon. Friend undertake to seek the elimination of MCAs on pigs and poultry? In doing so, will she consider the enormous potential in that sector for converting surplus cereals into pigmeat and poultrymeat, of which the United Kingdom is a net importer?

The Prime Minister: I believe that British farmers will welcome the agreement that we reached in Brussels. With regard to the two matters raised by my hon. Friend, I am aware that pig farmers are in acute difficulty at present, although I understand that poultry farmers are not in quite such difficulty. I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be seeking at Brussels the elimination, or at any rate the reduction, of MCAs in order to help our pig farmers.

Mr. Hattersley: As there have been very substantial changes in the education policy on which the Government fought the general election, may we be told whether the basic principles still stand? Does the Prime Minister still insist, as she did at the last Tory party conference, that in education the wishes of parents must be paramount?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in our last manifesto and in the legislation before the House, we are giving parents a greatly increased say in education and greatly increased opportunity for children. Those are the principles on which we fought the election. That is what is happening.

Mr. Hattersley: May I first of all welcome that emphasis on the importance of parental choice —[Interruption.] Does that mean that, if the ballot of inner London parents demonstrates that a majority of them want to continue with ILEA, the policy will be changed and ILEA will be kept in operation?

The Prime Minister: No. Our policy on ILEA has been generally welcomed—[Interruption.] At the election we made it clear that each local authority could opt out if it wished. Therefore, the future of the ILEA was always in doubt. We went further than that in our wish to help parents and said that if parents chose to opt a school out of ILEA or of a local authority they could do so. They


could, therefore, have stopped ILEA on their own. We were faced with views which suggested that there should be an orderly rundown of ILEA and I believe that that is the right policy.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Prime Minister realise that if her last answer means anything it means that parent power is to be respected so long as it agrees with Conservative prejudice?

The Prime Minister: Nonsense. The trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with our policy. That is why he lost.

Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the evidence that Lord Cockfield gave yesterday to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service? As the EEC Commission is evidently prepared to consider only formal representations, will she today write to the Commission, making it clear that the commitments that she has given on zero rating for VAT are absolute and that the Commission should not waste its time putting forward proposals that involve the abolition of the principle of zero rating for VAT?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Commission and one of the commissioners representing this country are very well aware of our position on VAT. We shall insist on our right to determine zero rating. Any changes in taxation have to be by unanimous vote and we would not agree to that. If my right hon. Friend thinks that the commissioners do not know, I shall make arrangements to see that they do.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Prime Minister clarify the reports to the effect that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is conveying to the Government of the Republic of Ireland the intention of another Department of Government before that Department comes to the House and has the consent of the House? Or is this just another attempt to make the House as useless as Members representing Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question was a little Irish; in fact such that I did not get the full meaning of its content. There is no change in our policy towards Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stokes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her recent meeting with the bishops of the Church of England has caused widespread satisfaction? Is she aware that at a time of rising prosperity, this can best be accompanied by high moral standards? Is it not the duty of the Church, as well as of parents and teachers, to proclaim those standards?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Rising prosperity brings great benefits, but on its own it is not enough. It is how one uses that rising prosperity that counts. I certainly had a private meeting of the kind that my hon. Friend indicated. I think that he and I, and most people, believe that all societies need to have rules and standards by which to live, and that the Church has a great part to play in setting those rules and standards.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: When will the Prime Minister end the confidence trick that is being played on pensioners and other recipients of state benefit in relation to the back pay which they were supposed to receive recently? Is she aware that in my constituency a 79-year-old blind pensioner, who has a son claiming constant attendance allowance, was due to receive £16 on both books, and in that very week her branch of the DHSS sent one pension book and reduced the entitlement to £8? Is it not time the Government got rid of the sinister streak that enables them to rob blind pensioners of £8 when the Prime Minister is doling out money to the Common Market and not investigating the fraud in the City of London?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the extra sum of approximately £8 is being paid. The Government were not legally compelled to pay it —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question.

The Prime Minister: The Government were not legally compelled to pay it, but took the decision to pay it as a moral duty. In the overwhelming majority of cases it is being paid perfectly normally. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case he should let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to answer.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case to raise he should let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know, or have the courtesy, if he is raising a case of one out of 10 million pensioners —[Interruption.] to let me know. If the hon. Gentleman is really the compassionate man that he is, I am sure he will see that that person does not lose.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In welcoming the positive news from Moscow, may I ask my right hon. Friend to organise a fresh mission for her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary? As he has been able to persuade the Soviet Union of the logic and sense of our maintaining our independent nuclear deterrent, perhaps he could be sent on a mission to persuade the Front Benches of the Labour and Liberal parties—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the Prime Minister's responsibility.

The Prime Minister: I very much welcome —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for the Prime Minister to answer the first part of that question.

The Prime Minister: I very much welcome Mr. Shevardnadze's confirmation of Soviet policy, that our independent nuclear deterrent is not contained within these arms control negotiations and is entirely outside them. That is why we are modernising it with Trident, and that is why we on the Government side believe that it is fundamental to our defence, and we shall see that our defences are fully safeguarded in the future.

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Prime Minister reflect on a letter in Saturday's Guardian from Dr. MacSweeney of Leytonstone House hospital which is within my constituency, saying that many mental health problems in this country are treatable, but with the cuts that the Government are imposing beds are often not available for psychiatric or mentally handicapped patients? As the Prime Minister is fond of reading out NHS statistics, will she read to the House the NHS statistics for bed losses and cutbacks in the mental health service? Or, in this matter is it mindless negligence that figures?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, this Government have done a very great deal to see that patients who would otherwise be in mental hospitals are outside and looked after in community care. We have made great strides towards that. I stress once again that what the hon. Gentleman runs away from the entire time is the fact that expenditure on the Health Service is up from £8 billion in 1978 to £22·5 billion this year.

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Peacock: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the leaflet that was recently circulated by the Labour party from Walworth road, which says that anyone who does not register—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House today that someone who does not register for the community charge will not be prohibited from voting in future elections?

The Prime Minister: Yes. There are two quite different registers. The register that entitles one to vote is registration on the electoral register. The community charge register is directly related to the community charge, and failure to register on the community charge register does not in any way affect one's right to vote. Anything said to the contrary is totally false.

Sir Russell Johnston: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read John Stalker's book? Is she aware that, for the ordinary Member of Parliament or, indeed, for the ordinary citizen who is not always involved in Northern Ireland, and does not agree with terrorism — in fact, hates terrorism — but is supportive of security, it is a pretty shocking book?
Will the Prime Minister tell me why a police officer who was singled out because of his probity and exceptional qualities should be treated in such a way? Surely the right hon. Lady cannot simply ignore what he said. Will she tell me what she is going to do about his allegations?

The Prime Minister: I have not read the book. The findings of that person were directed to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in his prosecuting capacity, and not to anyone else. Neither I nor anyone else in Government, other than my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, would be entitled to read that report, because it is not a matter that affects the Government, but it does affect the prosecuting authorities.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has given the reply about criminal prosecutions and proceedings, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has told the House that the next step is for the findings of the Stalker-Sampson inquiry to be considered in the context of possible disciplinary proceedings. He has also promised a statement as soon as possible on matters within his responsibility concerning procedures and control within the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That is the proper way to deal with the matter.

Training (White Paper)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the White Paper "Training for Employment", which I am publishing today.
In November last year I informed the House of my decision to bring together all the existing programmes for unemployed people over 18 into a new unified training programme. I informed the House that I had asked the Manpower Services Commission for its comments on the new programme and for its proposals for implementing it from September 1988.
I received the commission's detailed proposals last month. I am glad to say that the commission warmly welcomed the new programme and was unanimous on each of its detailed recommendations. The White Paper announces that I have accepted its proposals in full. I should like to pay tribute to the commission for the very thorough job that it has done in designing this new programme.
The White Paper describes the new programme in detail and sets it in the context of trends in the labour market. As it points out, there has been a dramatic transformation in the employment position over the past 18 months. In that time, unemployment has fallen by nearly 600,000, and there have been record falls in long-term unemployment and school-leaver unemployment. Over the past 12 months, the rate of unemployment has fallen faster in this country than in any other major industrial country.
At the same time, there has been a sharp growth in the number of jobs. The labour force survey—which I am also publishing today—shows that between March 1983 and September 1987 the number of people in jobs increased by 1·5 million. The survey also reveals that self-employment increased by 234,000 between 1986 and 1987. Since March 1983, there has been the longest sustained growth in employment for more than 30 years; there can be no clearer indication of the continuing strength of the British economy.
There is new evidence in the White Paper about the volume and nature of the job vacancies that are now available. A survey carried out specifically for the White Paper shows that there are currently over 700,000 unfilled vacancies in the economy as a whole. Vacancies in jobcentres account for only a third of this total. The survey also shows that last year employers throughout Great Britain recruited about 7·5 million employees. That was not confined to the south: two thirds of the recruitment took place outside London and the south-east.
As the White Paper makes clear, the challenge now is to ensure that unemployed people — particularly the longer-term unemployed—can take full advantage of the growth in the economy and in the number of jobs. At the centre of our strategy for meeting that challenge is the new training for employment programme.
The programme will have an annual budget of some £1·4 billion and will be able to provide training for about 600,000 people a year. Training will last for up to 12 months. It will begin with an initial assessment of each trainee's needs and aptitudes, carried out by training agents who will be appointed by the Manpower Services Commission. That will lead to a personal training plan for each trainee, which will set the pattern for his training.
A wide range of training will be provided — from basic skills to training at craft and technician level. Wherever possible, trainees will be given the opportunity to obtain a recognised vocational qualification or a credit towards one.
The new programme will be designed to ensure that the valuable contribution that voluntary organisations and other bodies have made to the community programme can continue. With that in mind, I have asked the commission to ensure that there are at least 170,000 project places in the new programme.
At the same time, it is essential that trainees who begin their training on projects should be able to move on to training with employers, so that they can learn and practise their new skills in a normal working environment. My intention is to involve employers increasingly in training long-term unemployed people.
The Manpower Services Commission has drawn up detailed proposals for ensuring that the new programme provides high-quality training. Training agents and training managers will need to demonstrate to the commission that they can meet the required standards, and the commission will regularly review their performance.
I have accepted in full the MSC's proposals for the payment of trainees in the new programme. Each trainee will be paid a training allowance, which will be between £10 and £12 a week higher than his previous benefit entitlement. In addition, there will be assistance towards travelling costs and other expenses. One defect of the present community programme wage is that it discriminates against the family man with children. Everyone in the new programme will be better off than if they had remained unemployed and claiming benefit.
The White Paper also details the efforts the employment service is making to help long-term unemployed people back into work. New efforts will be made to explain the in-work benefits available to them. In a survey carried out for the White Paper, half the benefit claimants interviewed did not know what benefits they could claim if they took a job.
Unemployment in this country has come down rapidly in the past 18 months and all the evidence is that there are more and more jobs available. We now have the opportunity to train long-term unemployed people in the skills they need in today's labour market. This will help to ensure that, as a country, we have the skilled work force we need to compete in markets at home and overseas. For these reasons I believe that the new training programme announced in this White Paper should command the support of the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: It is because the Opposition have repeatedly stressed that Britain now has the worst trained work force in Europe that we positively welcome any proposals to improve training. However, this scheme is a tragically missed opportunity. The Secretary of State speaks of a commitment to training. In that case, why are no extra funds being made available? Does he seriously expect the House to believe his claim that he can increase the number of people on the schemes by 50 per cent. and substantially enhance the quality of training that they receive—all for the same budget as now?
The Secretary of State implies that £10 per week over benefit is an incentive to join the scheme. However, is he aware that it will actually be only £5 per week because the first £5 of work expenses will have to be paid for by the


participant? Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that what the scheme really means is that people will be forced to work on £5 a week?
The best incentive is high-quality training. People will queue up for that. However, under this scheme, 60 per cent. of the time will be spent working, and almost all the managers in the field recognise that there will not be nearly enough funding or time for serious training. Is it not a fundamental flaw in the scheme that, because the Government refuse to provide an adequate budget, allowances have had to be cut to a derisory level so that nowhere near enough people will join the scheme voluntarily, and compulsion will then be used?
The Secretary of State says that participation will be voluntary. In that case, why has he taken powers in the current Employment Bill so that he can withdraw benefit from those who decline to join the scheme even if it is unsuitable to their skill needs? Will he give a commitment to the House that he will not trigger those powers in the lifetime of this Parliament? If he refuses, hon. Members will draw their own conclusions. Will he anyway recognise that restart and the tighter availability for work rules already involve creeping compulsion?
Why do the Government insist on regarding training as a cost to get people off the register rather than an investment and an opportunity? The Secretary of State recently visited Sweden. Did he note that, by spending two and a half times more per trainee place and by setting much higher training standards, Sweden has achieved an unemployment rate only one fifth as high as ours? Why does not the Secretary of State look to Sweden's record on training rather than to America on workfare?

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order afterwards.

Mr. Bruce: It is relevant.

Mr. Speaker: It may well be relevant, but I shall still take it afterwards.

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept anything that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said. Frankly, I find his points about Sweden incomprehensible, given that Sweden has the kind of compulsion against which I thought the hon. Gentleman sought to argue. That is the essence of the Swedish system; that is what it is all about. I suggest that he goes to Sweden and has a look at the system.
We are spending a total of £3 billion on training—in real terms, three times what the Labour Government spent on training. The new programme will cost £1·4 billion for 600,000 people, whereas the previous programmes cost £1·3 billion for 500,000 people in the current year. We aim not only for a contribution from employers but to use money better in one programme rather than in the 30 schemes.
On the benefit-plus proposal, in November the hon. Gentleman attacked me on the basis that the plus element on social security would be £4 or £5. We have now increased that figure to £10 or £12. I must underline the fact that we have accepted in full the proposals of the Manpower Services Commission, on which three trade union commissioners serve. I repeat that we have accepted in full what the Manpower Services Commission said.
The hon. Gentleman made allegations about compulsion. Let me say again that this is a voluntary scheme and

I have no plans to designate it as an approved training scheme. I have made that absolutely clear. We have debated clause 26 of the Employment Bill and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, one of the aims of that clause is to get rid of anomalies in the present position as between trainees and employees in work.
There is a need for a unified scheme. The new programme will train 600,000 people each year. It is backed by the unanimous report of the Manpower Services Commission, whose proposals the Government have accepted in full.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, far from being given the grudging greeting that we heard from the Opposition, this imaginative scheme will be widely welcomed out in the field? I am sure that he will understand if I raise the question of those who have been on the community projects who have special needs because they are physically or mentally disabled. Will he confirm that the MSC's recommendation of a supplement of an extra £20, raising it to £40, will be accepted? Does he accept that there will be a need for a staff-trainee ratio of 5:1 instead of 10:1, as there is in the excellent share community project in my constituency? Will he consider incorporating a measure to deal with earnings, incomes and bonus incentives for people working on the scheme, so that they can be prepared for the world of work outside?

Mr. Fowler: As I said, I have accepted in full all the proposals made by the Manpower Services Commission. It is one of our aims to seek to help disabled people with training. If there is anything further that I can do to underline that, I shall willingly consider it.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the weakness of his announcement is that it is a campaign without cash—there is no new money? He will know that the new job training scheme, which paid benefit and travel, did not command consensus and was a dismal flop. There is widespread scepticism about Government schemes. For this programme to succeed, he needs the support, cooperation and good will of all the bodies involved, including trade unions and local authorities. Why is he jeopardising that success by imposing an unrealistic premium of £10? It will cost almost £10 to get to work, so there is no incentive. Why is he spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar? Why does he not double that puny premium?

Mr. Fowler: Again, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, that, as he well knows, and I hope appreciates, the Government have shown their good will and good faith by accepting in full the proposals and recommendations made by the Manpower Services Commission. Among the commissioners of the Manpower Services Commission, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), there were three trade union representatives. I find it difficult to see how the Government could have done more to show what we want to do, which is to provide good training in this country. The new proposal for benefit-plus will mean that married men with children, who in the past have been excluded from some of the community programmes, will now be able to benefit from training.

Mr. James Paice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of training


and the opportunity to be part of the economic revival of this country, will be of benefit to the new skills that are needed for the expanding industries in my constituency and many more? On top of the plus aspect of the benefit, people participating will be better off not only while they are in training but in the future when they are back in employment doing a job that this country needs done.

Mr. Fowler: Yes, that is right. The purpose of the scheme and the programme is to train people for employment. More jobs are becoming available than for many years past. We want to provide the long-term unemployed with skills so that they can take the opportunity offered by those jobs.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the Secretary of State aware that his claims that unemployment is falling and that jobs are being created are accepted? Nevertheless, there is considerable concern about the quality of jobs being created, compared with those being destroyed. They are part-time, low-paid and often not adequately protected. In those circumstances, will he accept that his proposals to move to a benefit plus £10 to £12 scheme will be greeted with considerable concern by many organisations which are currently recruiting people, because it is supposed to be a gateway to a proper job?
The right hon. Gentleman said that it is essential that trainees who begin their training on projects should be able to move on to training with employers. If the community programme is so valuable, who will continue this work if local authorities and other agencies are denied the necessary rights, responsibilities and funds to do it?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in these circumstances, the community programme operators will feel that they have been sold short and will not be able to train people at the rate for the job, or to offer them a permanent job at the end of the training, unless the Government's wider policies are also changed?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the growth in employment and the reduction in unemployment. However, I do not agree with what he said in the latter part of his question. We look forward to the contribution of voluntary organisations in the new project training and we are making available 170,000 project places. The reform will mean that this will be training, rather than makework, and full-time rather than part-time. We hope to improve on the 30 per cent. who go into jobs from the community programme; we certainly hope that the new training programme will improve on that.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman was right about the record on low-paid jobs. More than a third of employment growth in recent years has been in areas such as banking, finance and business services, which are not noted for low pay levels. Another third has been in jobs in public administration, education and health. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said bears analysis.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the tremendous emphasis being laid on improvement in training is welcome? Does he recognise that considerable skill shortages are beginning to emerge in certain critical industries? Can he assure us that the new plan will go a long way towards meeting them?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, there is no question at all but that skills are required for many of the new jobs that are being made available. Therefore, the key to bringing long-term unemployed people back into employment is to provide skills for them. That is the essence of what we are trying to do.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The Secretary of State asked what more the Government could do. I suggest that they could have had full discussions with the Trades Union Congress and with the individual unions concerned—for example, in the construction industry—precisely to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about the need for skilled workers. Also, the Government could have entered discussions with the employers in those industries, so that some of the money could have gone to the creation of real apprenticeships in those industries to deal with the skill shortages.
Is it not clear that the Government are not really dealing with training for young people, and with skill shortages in this country? Once again, this is unfortunately another way of trying to decrease the numbers of people in the dole queues rather than dealing with the real issues at stake.

Mr. Fowler: No, I do not accept that. Not only is unemployment falling, but the survey that we have done for the White Paper shows that there are increasing numbers of vacancies. At present, we estimate that there are more than 700,000 vacancies in the economy. In that context, the sensible thing to do is to try to give training and skills to the long-term unemployed to bring them back into work. That is what we are trying to do.
As for consultation, we have consulted the Manpower Services Commission and accepted its recommendations in full. As the hon. Gentleman knows, three commissioners on the MSC are from the trade union movement.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: When taking up the kind invitation extended by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to examine Government funding for training in Sweden, will my right hon. Friend also take the opportunity to examine the position in Japan, where the Government put virtually no money into training, and where training is considered the responsibility of private industry and is done extremely well?

Hon. Members: And they do it.

Mr. Fowler: I am in danger of going on a world tour. I hope to take even the Opposition Front Bench with me when I say that training must be a combination of Government funding and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, funding by employers. We shall want to underline the latter aspect again during the coming weeks.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I think that the Secretary of State is aware that we are concerned not only about the quality of training because of under-funding, but also about the element of compulsion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has referred. However, another issue on which we must touch is the status of the participants in the programme. The Secretary of State is well aware that, in Committee on the Employment Bill, it was made clear that the rights of the participants in the programme could be drastically affected depending on whether they were designated as employees or trainees. Can he guarantee, and reassure the


House, that all participants will be covered by all the employment laws and that they will not be affected by the withdrawal of such measures as health and safety, race relations and other equal opportunity requirements that should apply?

Mr. Fowler: The participants will not be afforded all the protection that goes with being an employee, but we made it clear in Committee that they are regarded as trainees. Therefore, we expect and require that such health and safety and discrimination measures should be carried out.

Mr. Michael Colvin: From what my right hon. Friend said in answer to earlier questions, it is clear that he accepts the importance of ensuring that local training provision meets local demand for skills in existing job vacancies. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the work that has been done by the local employer networks towards meeting such needs? Those networks are involved with tripartite schemes combining local education authorities, the MSC and local chambers of commerce representing industry to ensure, to as great a degree as possible, that local training provision meets local training and skill needs.

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir, I am glad to do that. I believe that those schemes have made an extremely good start. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that what we want is training that is relevant not just to the needs of an employer, but also to the needs of local employers. That is what LENS is all about.

Mr. Barry Jones: In the absence of a statement by the Secretary of State for Wales on this subject, is the right hon. Gentleman speaking about Wales today? May I remind him that, in the Welsh coalfields and the steel areas, unemployment is still extremely high. In some areas, particularly in the valleys, male unemployment is as high as one in four. Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement guarantee good, permanent well-paid jobs? We need such a guarantee in Wales. I urge him not to adopt a complacent attitude when he speaks to Wales on this important matter.

Mr. Fowler: There is no question of complacency. Unemployment has come down in all the regions. Some of the areas where the rate of unemployment has come down fastest are those where the problems have been greatest—for example, areas such as Wales, the west midlands, the north and the north-west. I certainly emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that I am not complacent about the matter.

Mr. Keith Raffan: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will be warmly welcomed in Wales. Even though Wales has a surplus of labour, we have a serious shortage in particular skills. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the scheme will work, especially in conjunction with local authorities, to respond to local needs? My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has already made it clear that the response to such local needs is crucial. In my area, there are local needs within the clothing industry. There is a need for much improved co-operation with the MSC.

Mr. Fowler: It will be the responsibility of the MSC, soon to become the Training Commission, to devise and oversee the type of schemes that will be put forward. Clearly, one of our purposes will be to involve employers

much more than before. I repeat that the crucial thing is to involve local employers and to see that training is relevant to the local demands for labour.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State has told the House that, presently, there are 700,000 job vacancies. Will he give us a regional breakdown of that number? Does he agree that the problem of rural deprivation needs to be addressed by the Government? That is a hidden problem. There are still people losing their jobs in the traditional industries such as food processing, and all those allied to agriculture. The problem is that those people are having to leave the rural areas to find work because there is no proper scheme to enable them to acquire skills where they and their families live, which would ensure that they could bring up their children in those rural areas. Have the Government addressed that issue?

Mr. Fowler: Certainly I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some of the biggest differences are not between regions but inside regions. That is one of the problems that the programme will try to address. The survey of vacancies showed that currently there are more than 700,000 vacancies per month. We estimated that there were about 7·5 million vacancies during 1987, two thirds of which were filled outside London and the south-east, 38 per cent. were in the survey area of East Anglia, the west midlands, Wales and the south-west and 29 per cent. were in the north, the north-west and Scotland. Obviously, those are big regions, but they prove the point that the division between north and south is a total over-simplification of the position.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be widely welcomed in my constituency, where, in each of the 18 wards, unemployment has fallen during the past 12 months? Will he note that, although local needs should be met locally, and we have skill shortages in hard-pressed north-east England, it is important that the national job vacancy situation is known to everyone? Will he seriously consider expanding the Oracle scheme that currently operates only in three regions covered by television boundaries to a national scheme which would enable people throughout the country, and particularly in the south of England, to see the vacancies which are available in the north of England where we are seeking to attract people with the skills we need?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I shall certainly look at the details of what he is proposing. Certainly, there are areas outside London and the south-east where there are attractive jobs and an attractive environment in which to work.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the work of centres for the unemployed in various parts of the country —including my constituency, where, despite the national fall, unemployment is twice what it was in 1979? Will he give me an assurance that nothing in that document will prejudice the future of the people who work in those centres?

Mr. Fowler: Inasmuch as such centres provide good services for unemployed people, which clearly is desirable, certainly nothing in the document will change their


position. I would need to look a little more closely at individual schemes before giving the hon. Gentleman the total guarantee he seeks.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Exactly how many of those 700,000 vacancies are in the south-east, where more than 600,000 foreign nationals seem to be able to find work and where there are so many skill shortages? Why does my right hon. Friend not toughen up his programme and cut out unemployment benefit for those soft southerners and instead give the money to those from the north to help them with their housing if they are prepared to travel to the south and take the jobs?

Mr. Fowler: The system of unemployment and supplementary benefit is vitally a national scheme. However, my hon. Friend has a point, in that jobs unquestionably are available in the south, where even now there is a great number of long-term unemployed people. We must seek to bring those people into the available jobs.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State has made much of the fact that he has accepted the MSC recommendations. However, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Employment, it was concerned about two issues. First, that particular arrangement does nothing to help the over-fifties. What can the Minister say about them? Secondly, as important as the acceptance of the TUC commissioners, the Secretary of State will know that his scheme largely depends on voluntary organisations. How many of those voluntary organisations have agreed with the scheme as it now stands?

Mr. Fowler: Broadly, I hope that all voluntary organisations will accept and work with the scheme. That is very much in the interests of the people they represent and the work that they are doing. That would be my hope regarding voluntary organisations. I understand and share the concern that over-fifties should not be excluded in any way from training. Anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months is eligible for the programme that I have set out. Clearly there are a number of priorities—the 18-to-25 group and the 25-to-50 group—but we do not intend to exclude the over-fifties from the training programme.

Mr. John Watts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, a major problem is the surplus of job vacancies compared with unemployed people with suitable skills to fill them? The majority of employers cite the shortage of skilled labour as the major constraint to further expansion. Therefore, there will be a warm welcome for his proposals, which will help my 3,000 constituents who are registered as unemployed to acquire the skills needed to fill the vacant jobs and will help companies throughout the Thames valley by supplying them with the skilled labour that they desperately need.

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. If we can train and provide long-term unemployed people with skills in many parts of the country, there is no reason why those people should not very speedily find jobs.

Mr. Bill Michie: I am glad that the Minister is now coming round to the idea that there is a shortage of skills and a shortage of jobs. The Opposition have been telling the Government about that for many years.
We now have a complacent statement congratulating the MSC on its co-operation. Does the Minister realise that, although the MSC top brass, who are nothing but puppets of the Government, may be happy, those who implement the schemes are so distressed that some of them today are taking industrial action?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should take up those last remarks with the commissioners, who have endorsed the scheme. Frankly, when he finds out who they are, he will not regard them as puppets of the Government. As for the case for change, there is a need for a unified scheme. The long-term unemployed must now be the priority. More jobs are available: that is beyond doubt. The labour force survey, published today, shows that about half the long-term unemployed have no qualifications, and that many of them are young, half under 35. That is an opportunity and a challenge.

Mr. Graham Riddick: My right hon. Friend clearly wants to encourage employers to be more involved in the .training process. Will he give me more details about how he intends to do that and whether there will be appropriate funding? Will he give me more details about the special provisions that might be made for the long-term young unemployed, the 18 to 25-year-olds?

Mr. Fowler: We shall seek to involve employers in the new adult training programme in a way that they have previously not been involved. Clearly, that will depend very much upon getting the co-operation and help of employers. Secondly, as well as training the unemployed, we need training for those who are already in jobs. Again, employers have the first duty in that. The 18-to-25 group is a priority group, and our major efforts will be directed to bringing those people back into employment.

Mr. Bob Clay: Under the new workfare-plus system, who will be responsible for paying the benefit? Will it be the employers and the agencies, so that there is a pretence or an impression of a low wage, or will that responsibility remain with the Department of Employment and the DHSS, so that the employers and agencies will pay that miserable £10? It is clear that this is nothing more than slave labour-plus.

Mr. Fowler: No, it will come from the Government, but it is a benefit plus premium. We have always said that that was the case. In other words, the principle will be that people will have their social security entitlement, and, in addition, a premium. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that his description of this as workfare is ludicrous and I shall not bother to try to reply to that.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend note that one of the most important aspects of his announcement is benefit-plus? We all know of unemployed constituents who are not looking at schemes at present for fear of damaging the benefit arrangements of their families, so will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that this benefit-plus commitment will be trumpeted from the rooftops?

Mr. Fowler: We shall certainly seek to do that. The whole purpose is to underline the fact that people will be better off on the training programme than unemployed. The incentive will be particularly great for married people with children, who have previously been left out of training in Britain.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that, in constituencies such as mine, any reductions in unemployment are due more to how he calculates his figures than to any rise in employment? On Derwentside, since 1980, there has been a rise in employment of less than half of I per cent. Even if we forget the arguments about the figures, constituencies such as mine still have high unemployment; fewer and fewer employers who are prepared to take on young people or trainees because they feel that they are struggling at the edges; a large number of people who are currently engaged in the community programme, but largely through voluntary organisations and the public sector; and a low wage economy.
Together, those factors mean that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are unfortunate for my constituents and for many others in similar constituencies. How can he guarantee that the money for trainees will not be less than it is at the moment and that the quality of training will be better than it has been, so that we really can re-equip people for the future?

Mr. Fowler: The essence of what the hon. Lady is saying is in her last point, on the quality of training. We are changing from the present system because, although schemes such as the community programme have many good features, they are not providing the full-time training that we want to see. We are building upon the foundation laid by the community programme.
I accept that there are variations in unemployment between constituencies and between cities, but the labour force survey, which is published today, shows that there has been faster growth in the employed labour force than we had thought. There has been an increase of 450,000 over the past 12 months, rather than 400,000, self-employment has gone up sharply, and, as I have said, over 1–5 million additional jobs have been created since March 1983.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much we welcome his bold and imaginative proposal which will give the long-term unemployed the incentive and opportunity to return to work? He said that a large proportion of the training will be on employers' premises, but how does he intend to communicate their responsibility to enough employers, and, in addition, to monitor the quality of such training?

Mr. Fowler: That will be very much a function of the Training Commission. We hope to encourage employers to come forward with such schemes and their quality will be monitored in very much the same way as the youth training scheme, with approved training organisation status and the rest. But, as I said to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), the crux of the matter is that we should provide not only training, but high-quality training.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the White Paper a whitewash—a con, even—because when we hear the Secretary of State and the statistics, we are really listening to lies, damned lies and Tory propaganda—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in this Chamber, please. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw that?

Mr. Brown: I accept that "Tory" is a four-letter word, and I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw those comments.

Mr. Brown: If it hurts, okay, I understand why. 1 withdraw what I said—reluctantly, under protest. I say that because back in my constituency of Leith we have record unemployment and youngsters leaving school with no hope, no job and no future, thanks to the Government. To talk about another slave labour scheme is an insult to them and their families and they will resist it. They will resent it, and they will fight back.

Mr. Fowler: That is an extraordinarily silly intervention. It even embarrasses the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench spokesmen. Unemployment has come down not only for one or two months but for 18 months in succession, and it is down by over 500,000 in the year to December. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that, but that would be to ascribe to him rather more good sense than he obviously has.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my right hon. Member aware that his absolute commitment to voluntarism will be widely welcomed throughout Britain, as will his support for voluntary projects and the part that they have played in the community programme until now—and indeed, the part that they will play in the adult training programme in the future? Was my right hon. Friend surprised when he learned, for the first time, that the number of vacancies unfilled in Britain was 700,000? Does he agree that that figure is, frankly, a disgrace, because it represents a waste of human resources—people who should be in those jobs—and a waste of Britain's economic resources, because we are having to support those people in idleness when they could be working? What does he propose to do to reduce that figure drastically, and soon?

Mr. Fowler: We confirm that there are over 700,000 vacancies. We had always believed in the past that the number of vacancies in jobcentres represented about a third of the vacancies in the economy, but the survey confirms, on the latest information that we have, the basis of that previous estimate. As I have said, it means that, during 1987, about 7·5 million vacancies became available throughout Britain. There are certainly vacancies for management and professionals, but 18 per cent. of the vacancies are in non-manual jobs such as clerical work, 33 per cent. in retailing or catering, 21 per cent. in skilled and semi-skilled occupations, and 17 per cent. in unskilled occupations. There are vacancies not only throughout the country but over a range of occupations. The one message that comes through is that, if the long-term unemployed are to take those vacancies, they require training in the necessary skills.

Mr. John McAllion: The Minister said that training agents will need to demonstrate that they can meet the required standards to ensure high quality training. Therefore, will he explain why, when the Scottish Office was asked to supply comparative information on the performance of managing agents under the job training scheme, it responded by saying that it was not the Government's policy to provide such information? Will he assure the House that comparative information on the performance of training agents under the new scheme will be made available to hon. Members so that they can judge whether high-quality training is being given under the new programme?

Mr. Fowler: Training agents are a new concept under the programme. Nothing like them exists at the moment. The idea is that every person entering the programme will be assessed and given suitable training. In other words, people will be given a personal training plan. The training agent may be a chamber of commerce, a voluntary organisation or a training body, but certainly we shall seek to ensure that the standards of the training agents are high and that as much information as possible is given.

Mr. James Cran: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in a contradistinction to the dreary but wholly predictable welcome that his statement has received from the Opposition, it will be welcomed in my constituency, which is in the north of England, because we in Humberside also have skill shortages? Does he also accept that critical to the success of his plans is the involvement of employers and that many hon. Members as well as others believe that employers have not done as much as they ought in the past to secure the training of the work force? Will he outline how he intends to convince them of what is in their interests and those of the country?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recognise his experience in this area. We intend, in the Department and in the Manpower Services Commission, to have talks with the employers' organisations and with the employers themselves to point out to them the advantage of being involved in programmes of this kind. The fact is that a good adult training programme is good not only for the long-term unemployed but for employers and for the economy as a whole.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the north of England a high proportion of people already receive training in their first job? Is he aware that the overwhelming need on Teesside at the moment is for skilled people, particularly in the banking and financial sectors, where employment is rapidly increasing? Is he also aware that 76 per cent. of firms on Teesside recently responded to a survey by saying that they expected to increase their employment opportunities in the next year? Is he aware, further, that there are no Cleveland Labour Members in the Chamber at the present time?

Mr. Fowler: I hear what my hon. Friend says on the last point. I pay a tribute to him for the work that he does in the area. As I have said before, the training that is carried

out must be geared to providing people with skills, and those skills must be relevant to the local Labour market. That seems to me to be the essence of the approach that we must take.

Ms. Clare Short: May I put to the Secretary of State again the very important question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and not answered? Will he give an undertaking that this scheme will never be designated under clause 26 of the Employment Bill? If he will not say never, will he say at least for the lifetime of this Parliament? Does he understand that, if he will not give that undertaking, he will be breaching the recommendation of the Manpower Services Commission, which said that it was an absolute requirement that the scheme be voluntary? We look forward to the Secretary of State's giving that undertaking.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not, we shall all know what it means. It means that he plans a compulsory scheme. It means that he plans a scheme that will pay people £10 a week on top of their benefit but expect them to pay their own work expenses—and the DHSS says that the average cost of getting to work is £7 a week. It is compulsory work experience, not training, and it is not good enough to call work experience training for the long-term unemployed. It is an insult to the unemployed and it is unacceptable to the voluntary sector throughout the land, which does not want to become a police force for the unemployed but wants to run valuable projects that help the community and the unemployed.

Mr. Fowler: I am not prepared to take lectures from the hon. Lady on voluntary organisations; nor do I recognise her power to speak on behalf of voluntary organisations in this country. I believe that many voluntary organisations — I hope, all of them — will want to cooperate in this programme. The hon. Lady has done her best over the past few months to sabotage and damage the programme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I very much hope that her efforts will not be successful, because I think that they are against the national interest.
As for the scheme itself, I have made it clear that it is a voluntary scheme; I have made it clear that I have no plans to designate it approved training; and I have made it clear that I accept the Manpower Services Commission's proposals on it. Anyone who has ears to hear will understand what that means.

Points of Order

Mr. Harold McCusker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For three successive weeks now, very important talks have been taking place between this Government and the Government of the Irish Republic about matters affecting the vital interests of the people of Northern Ireland, matters of life and death for them and increasingly matters affecting people on the mainland as well. I appeal to you as a defender of Back-Bench and minority interests in this regard.
The role of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland is already very circumscribed. The events of the past 54 minutes prove that. A very important statement was made. It does not apply to me; nor does it apply to my colleagues. In some obscure meeting in Fermanagh, a member of the Northern Ireland Office will tell the people of Northern Ireland what is going to happen to them, and we cannot even debate that. We are legislated for in a manner completely different from that applying to any other part of the United Kingdom, and we cannot amend that either.
If the only role left for me is to come here and try to make the colonial system of government which applies to Northern Ireland at least answerable to the elected representatives from Northern Ireland, will you tell me how I can do that, or can you confirm what Ministers refuse to confirm, that I do not have any role here, that I am now redundant?

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not the case. I frequently hear the hon. Gentleman take part in our debates in this United Kingdom Parliament, and at Question Time too.

Ms. Joan Walley: I rise again to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you can give me any advice as to how we can do something to make sure that my constituent Claire Wise gets her operation in Birmingham. I have been in Birmingham all morning. There are four beds in the intensive care unit. One child has been prepared for an operation and there is no bed for him because there are no beds designated for intensive care for heart surgery. We desperately need to do something. We have had promises and undertakings from Ministers. Unless we get a statement on the Floor of the House about our individual constituents, and, more important, about

immediate provision for that hospital in Birmingham, I am afraid that more children will die. I believe that we really must do something about this.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the same point—

Mr. Speaker: I know it will be the same point. Yes?

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has explained admirably what the situation is at the children's hospital in Birmingham. I am very saddened, as we all are, that Matthew Collier, the son of my constituents, died at the hospital on Sunday. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to extend their deepest sympathy to Mr. and Mrs. Collier and that Matthew will be remembered for a very long time in the west midlands.
There is an acute crisis at the children's hospital because of inadequate staffing and funding. My hon. Friend has referred to her constituents' child whose operation has been delayed again. Matthew's operation was delayed three times. Another child—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point for me? It seems to me that these are political issues, which have nothing to do with the Chair. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman, out of sympathy for the loss of his constituents' child, to make those comments but, sad though they are, they have nothing to do with me as a matter of order.

Mr. Winnick: The point I am making is that we have a duty and an obligation to raise these matters on the Floor of the House. I would have wished that, following the private notice question on Friday, which I did not know was coming, the Minister would have made a statement in the House. There is this crisis to which my hon. Friend and I have been referring. There are parents who are desperately afraid that their children are going—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been here on Friday when that question was answered, he would have been called. Although I have allowed him to raise the matter under the cloak of a point of order, these are political questions which are not for the Chair.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 2227) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

National Health Service (National Lottery) Bill

Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national lottery to provide additional funds for the National Health Service; and for connected purposes.
So that there may be no confusion as to the purpose of the Bill, I emphasise that it has nothing to do with Government funding of the Health Service, but seeks to raise funds over and above the record levels of Government spending, to provide equipment such as kidney machines and CAT scanners, to help with building programmes such as the one at the Great Ormond street hospital and to reduce waiting lists.
Comic Relief, Band Aid and many other charitable fund-raising activities on a local level over many years have shown that there is a rich seam of good will towards deserving causes. Many countries which have completely diverse political directions run lotteries. Communist Russia has a lottery, and many of the free-enterprise states of America have lotteries. Socialist Spain and conservative West Germany have lotteries, as does cohabiting France.
To see the potential success of raising additional funds, one has only to look at the record of those lotteries. In 1983, in the 23 states of America that had lotteries, $5 billion was raised in sales revenue. Last year that figure had jumped to over $12 billion. If we assume that between 40 and 45 per cent. of the takings were spent on health, education or senior citizens in those American states, we are talking about a substantial sum of money. The same pattern is reflected in Europe. The French lottery in 1983 raised £1·7 billion through sales revenue; West Germany raised £1·8 billion; and last year the sales revenue in Spain was £3·5 billion.
The development of computer technology is making the running of lotteries infinitely safer and less likely to be the subject of fraud or chicanery. I envisage that we would have between 17,000 and 25,000 retail sales outlets at confectioners and tobacconists, with machines similar to cash registers which are connected to a central computer, so that information and winning numbers can be transmitted instantaneously.
The average price of a ticket, depending on the scheme to be introduced, would be £1, which is within the range of most people over the age of 18. That is less than the price of a pint of beer or a packet of cigarettes. To make the proposition attractive, substantial cash prizes would be offered, with the possibility that if one was successful in one week the main prize money would be rolled over to the next week, as is done in the United States. In that way, people would have the excitement of hoping to win some money and at the same time giving money to a genuine good cause that they want to help.
For too long we have not given thought to organising a lottery; now is the time. While we are debating the review of the Health Service and its efficiency and ways of raising funds, a lottery should be seriously considered as a way of involving the country in a worthwhile exercise. For that reason, I beg the House to approve the motion.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) carries the heavy

burden of having been described by The Daily Telegraph on 14 December last year as a "cerebral Thatcherite zealot" and one
to watch when picking the next-prime-ministers-but-three.
The most useful contribution of this short debate is a clue to the direction in which the Tory Right wishes the country to go; that is its only use.
The last major investigation into national lotteries was the Royal Commission on Gambling in 1978, which warned against transplanting lotteries from Europe and America into Britain. The hon. Gentleman quoted some figures from the Peacock report which looked at the financing of the BBC by lotteries. He gave the sales figures of the lotteries, not the revenue figures after deducting the cost of prizes and administration.
In the American states the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the highest amount raised by a lottery was £200 million; in France it was £540 million; in Spain it was £690 million; and in Germany it was £910 million. Those figures are based on December 1987 prices and exchange rates. Even if his harebrained scheme were successful, the money raised would amount to 10 to 15 per cent. of the current underfunding of the National Health Service being met by a lottery.
The biggest caveat is that in all those countries there are no pools or premium bonds—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said, no bingo, casinos, horse racing or dogs. Vast amounts of money are spent on gambling in this country. Last year, £4·5 billion was spent on horse racing and dogs, £1·6 billion was spent in casinos, £775 million was spent on bingo and £600 million was spent on the pools. If the hon. Gentleman were serious about raising money for the NHS, he should have brought forward a Bill to nationalise horse racing, casinos, bingo and the pools to raise money for the National Health Service. But that would take away some of his mates' profits, so that would be the last thing in this mind.
Does the hon. Gentleman want to promote gambling? Is that what the Prime Minister means when she talks about Victorian values? Are we to have television advertisements promoting gambling, such as the advertisements for BP shares, with a 1980s equivalent of Hughie Green talking about doubling our money? Has he talked to the Treasury about the tax revenue from the pools, which is about £250 million a year?
All the investigations on this issue have concluded that a lottery would be successful only at the expense of the pools, premium bonds and small lotteries run by charities and sports clubs. I assume that that is why Baroness Trumpington said a year ago that her Department's estimate was that at best a lottery would raise £50 million. That £50 million would be less than 3 per cent. of the current level of underfunding of the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman, in his article in The Times yesterday, talked about Band Aid, Comic Relief and telethons, and the generosity of young people. Yet the Government, days after the first Band Aid concert in July 1985, rewarded all those young people by abolishing the wages councils for under-21-year-olds and now intend to abolish supplementary benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds—precisely the same young people who are expected to have money in their pockets to contribute to charities.
The hon. Gentleman talked about computer technology. Did he not watch the "Horizon" programme on BBC2 last year? If he wants to improve computer


technology, he should look first at the Civil Aviation Authority at West Drayton, which has a 17-year-old computer and desperately needs money for a new one. We need computers in the NHS for recall systems for cervical cancer screening and to reduce the waiting lists, not to pick out numbers for a lottery.
The NHS has real problems in the west midlands. Those problems have been described graphically today by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). In the past few months, hardly a family in the west midlands has not been troubled by the crisis in the National Health Service. Over this past weekend, we as a region have grieved over the two deaths and the other deaths in recent months which have been caused by the Prime Minister's lottery — whether the raffle system works, whether our bairns get their operations when they need them at the Birmingham children's hospital. This weekend, two children lost their gamble
My region had £30 million cut from its funding this year, and over the past six years, according to the Select Committee on Social Services the nation has lost almost £2,000 million from its National Health Service funding. There is only one source for that finance, and it is not the ideas of the loony Right. On 15 March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will offer a reported £3 billion to £4 billion in tax cuts to the richest 5 per cent. of the population. He should put at least £2,000 million of that into the Health Service to cure the underfunding and £500 million into improving the wages and conditions of those who work in the Health Service.
We are told that there are 21 rich countries in the world. Britain is 17th in the league when it comes to funding the Health Service. What are the consequences of that? I have spoken about the consequences in personal terms. Last year, for the first time since 1970, infant mortality in this country rose. That is light years away from a Tory Cabinet stuffed with BUPA cards in its back pocket and from a Secretary of State for Social Services who could afford £1,000 a week when he was ill before Christmas.
The underfunding has taken its toll on Health Service staff. Twenty-seven thousand nurses join the Health Service each year, but 30,000 leave each year. Sixty nurses a week leave the Health Service. That is not surprising, when nursing auxiliaries start at only £90 a week. That is the problem that needs curing in the Health Service.
According to a local newspaper in my constituency, a state-enrolled nurse in Coventry asked for five light bulbs to be replaced on a ward last November, and she is still waiting. Patients are being treated in corridors because 100 beds have been closed. A geriatric hospital is due for closure, if the Government approve the closure plans. Before Christmas, physically and mentally handicapped people, from children to old-age pensioners, suffered the supreme indignity of being told that there was no more money to supply incontinence pads in Coventry. Some of my constituents and drying out used incontinence pads on radiators overnight so that their parents can use them the next day.
Then the loony Right comes in and says, "Let's solve the problems with raffle tickets. Let's salve our conscience by having a bit of a flutter." We do not need escapism; we need a bit of realism from the Government. We need the £2,000 million which it is estimated is needed to solve underfunding of the Health Service.
There is huge, widespread and deep anger among working people in this country about the callous indifference of the Cabinet towards the Health Service. In the past few months, health workers have come out on strike everywhere — today, it is COHSE members in south-east London and Kent. Next Wednesday, Scottish workers will come out on strike. On 5 March, the TUC will hold a national rally in London, which I predict will be bigger than the industrial relations rallies of the early 1970s. COHSE has called for 14 March, the day before the Budget, to be a national day of action in support of the Health Service. That will receive enormous support throughout the country, particularly from young people.
We cannot end the suffering of hundreds of thousands of families or improve the working conditions of Health Service workers through raffles, jumble sales or lotteries. We can do that only through the industrial action of workers on 14 March, nationally and in a generalised fashion, to force the Government to give back the money which they have robbed from working people 'n recent years. The hon. Member for Chelmsford and his hon. Friends should wipe the smiles off their faces. The day that they come forward with a proposal for a lottery or a flag day for Trident, we could think about a lottery for the National Health Service.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 164.

Division No. 180]
[4.45 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
French, Douglas


Arbuthnot, James
Gale, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gardiner, George


Ashby, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Atkinson, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boswell, Tim
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Holt, Richard


Bowis, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hunter, Andrew


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Irvine, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Irving, Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Janman, Tim


Burns, Simon
Jessel, Toby


Butler, Chris
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Butterfill, John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carrington, Matthew
Kilfedder, James


Cartwright, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Conway, Derek
Knox, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Latham, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Ivan


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Devlin, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mans, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marland, Paul


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Monro, Sir Hector


Franks, Cecil
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles






Moss, Malcolm
Speller, Tony


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stokes, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Summerson, Hugo


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Thorne, Neil


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rost, Peter
Wilshire, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and


Sims, Roger
Miss Ann Widdecombe


Skeet, Sir Trevor



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald
Darling, Alistair


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Armstrong, Hilary
Dixon, Don


Ashdown, Paddy
Doran, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Beckett, Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beith, A. J.
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fearn, Ronald


Blunkett, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galbraith, Sam


Buckley, George J.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Graham, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clay, Bob
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Coleman, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)





Holland, Stuart
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Geraint
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hume, John
Reid, Dr John


Ingram, Adam
Richardson, Jo


Janner, Greville
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rooker, Jeff


Lambie, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Salmond, Alex


Litherland, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Livsey, Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McFall, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Turner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Wall, Pat


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Walley, Joan


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wareing, Robert N.


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morley, Elliott
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mullin, Chris
Wilson, Brian


Murphy, Paul
Winnick, David


Nellist, Dave
Worthington, Tony


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Neill, Martin



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tellers for the Noes:


Parry, Robert
Mrs. Alice Mahon and


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Bill Michie.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having won three of these debates in a row, may I keep the Mace, or have I to fight the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for it?

Order of the Day

Immigration Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 3

EXAMINATION OF PASSENGERS PRIOR TO ARRIVAL

`(1) This section applies to a person who arrives in the United Kingdom with a passport or other travel document bearing a stamp which—

(a) has been placed there by an immigration officer before that person's departure on his journey to the United Kingdom or in the course of that journey; and
(b) states that the person may enter the United Kingdom either for an indefinite or a limited period and, if for a limited period, subject to specified conditions.

(2) A person to whom this section applies shall for the purposes of the principal Act be deemed to have been given on arrival in the United Kingdom indefinite or, as the case may be, limited leave in terms corresponding to those of the stamp.
(3) A person who is deemed to have leave by virtue of this section shall be treated as having been given it by a notice given to him by an immigration officer within the period specified in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2 to the principal Act.
(4) A person deemed to have leave by virtue of this section shall not on his arrival in the United Kingdom be subject to examination under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act but may be examined by an immigration officer for the purpose of establishing that he is such a person.
(5) The leave which a person is deemed to have by virtue of this section may, at any tine before the end of the period of twenty-four hours from his arrival at the port at which he seeks to enter the United Kingdom or, if he has been examined under subsection (4) above, from the conclusion of that examination, be cancelled by an immigration officer by giving him a notice in writing refusing him leave to enter.
(6) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act shall have effect as if any notice under subsection (5) above were a notice under that paragraph.
(7) References in this section to a person's arrival in the United Kingdom are to the first occasion on which he arrives after the time when the stamp in question was placed in his passport or travel document, being an occasion not later than seven days after that time.'.—[Mr. Renton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It may be helpful to the House if I sketch in the background to the rather long new clause which seeks to achieve a simple point. I do not think that the debate will be as exciting or fundamental as the wide-ranging debate on the ten-minute Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) wished to present.
The intention of the new clause is to remove any legal impediment to the operation of pre-clearance arrangements. As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know, the new clause is related to clause 7, which makes it possible for additional services to be provided against payment at the request of port operators or carriers. One of the most important of these services is likely to be the process known as pre-clearance. It involves immigration officers travelling abroad so that United Kingdom immigration control procedures can be completed either at the port of embarkation or during the journey to this country.
Such arrangements have featured for many years at certain cross-Channel ports and at Southampton for generations of liners, latterly restricted to the QE2. But as clause 7 holds open the possibility of the extension of such arrangements into wholly new areas, we think it right that we should formalise the position on the face of the statute. That is what the new clause will do.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will undoubtedly know that the Standing Committee on the Bill met for about 62 hours. During its deliberations, the Minister for Sport referred in passing to these arrangements. Although I accept that it is not without precedent for a Government to introduce a new clause on Report, it seems unusual that the Minister did not see fit to bring forward the new clause in Committee. I am sure that this would not be regarded as a welcome precedent.
Surely the Standing Committee should have been given the opportunity to consider the new clause in detail and to question the Minister about its background. Perhaps before he proceeds with his speech he will explain why he did not present the new clause in Committee rather than here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I do not think that that is a point of order or a matter for me, but perhaps it is a point for debate which the hon. Gentleman might raise when subsequently he seeks to catch my eye.

Mr. Renton: I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on one thing. We did sit for 62 hours in Standing Committee; it seemed an interminable length of time to most of us, particularly on the Government side. I hope that I can move the new clause, and that perhaps the House will pass it, in not much more time than the hon. Gentleman took in his intervention.
It may be helpful if I summarise briefly why we wish to look at possible ways of expanding the operation of the pre-clearance approach into new areas. We must realise that congestion at our major air terminals, which is already heavy at peak periods, is likely to get worse as international passenger movements increase. Congestion and delays have been notably helped at Gatwick and at Healthrow by the introduction, about a year age, of visit visas for five countries, three on the Indian sub-continent and two in Africa, but there remains fierce competition for the early morning arrival slots. This can lead, as hon. Members on both sides of the House know, to the near-simultaneous arrival of a very large number of passengers which the immigration service is extremely pressed to clear within a reasonable period.
Pre-clearance, particularly for north Atlantic traffic arriving at Heathrow and Gatwick in the early morning, has been shown in a pilot scheme that we ran last year to be a way of mitigating some of the difficulties and delays that result. It also proved to be to the liking of both passengers and carrying companies. I stress, however, that such pre-clearance, if requested by the airlines, could be carried out as well at Delhi, Dhaka and Islamabad, as it has been at Kennedy airport.
However, it is only right that this kind of special service should be provided against payment by the organisation that requests it. Clause 7 provides for that. I make it clear


to the House that pre-clearance will not be imposed on any port operator or company, and will be introduced only at the request of one or the other.
In relation to the practicalities of operating a system of pre-clearance, I stress that in a scheme involving, say, the pre-clearance of transatlantic passengers at Kennedy airport in New York, the immigration officer concerned will have the ability only to grant, and not to refuse, leave to enter. Where he concludes that refusal of leave is the appropriate course, that will take place only on arrival in the United Kingdom. Of course, where a passenger presenting himself for pre-clearance is found to have inadequate documentation—for example, a visa national may not have a visa —it would be appropriate for the immigration officer to point out our requirement and, if the warning is not heeded, advise the carrying company before departure. Allowing a passenger to board in those circumstances and then imposing a penalty on the carrier under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act on the passenger's arrival in the United Kingdom, would rightly be considered unfair treatment by the company involved.

5 pm

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Would a carrier that avails itself of this service be able to advertise the fact that it had been granted the service? Would it be safe to advertise generally, or would that be done merely for occasional flights or a series of flights?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question. Once the service has been provided at the request of the carrier and the appropriate charge has been agreed with the Home Office and the immigration service, I see no reason why the carrier should not advertise. I think that some carriers would do just that, because they would regard it as an extra service to their customers.
The main point of the new clause is that it will apply to people who are examined by an immigration officer, either abroad or during their journey to the United Kingdom. At that time they would have the stamp placed in their passport or other travel document. It will make it possible for the leave to enter granted to such people to take effect immediately on their arrival in this country.
This is not a major new clause. It breaks no new ground, but taken with clause 7, it will enable us to use the resources of the immigration service more effectively, which I am always most anxious to do. The existence of a system of pre-clearance can bring with it benefits for all concerned, and it seems likely that the next few years will bring interesting developments in this direction. The new clause takes account of such developments, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The Opposition have listened carefully to what the Minister said about pre-clearance. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said, we regret the fact that we did not have the opportunity to debate the matter in Committee in the way that we would have liked. We have reached the Report stage now, and there has been very little time to debate the matter or to consult trade unions and others who could be affected by the developments. Many of us are still uncertain about how this will grow and be extended, and what will be the terms

and conditions of those working in the immigration service. Many of them are port-based workers, and it seems that their role will change very much.
I understand that some of the people involved are worried because they believe that they will move from a port-based operation and become more like aircrew, working on a rota basis and travelling around the world. The scheme will affect many people working in the industry. For this reason, we would have liked more time to consider the matter. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why he did not bring this new clause forward before the Report stage. I cannot understand why he has left it so late. Is it because of sloppy drafting, or is it because he thought of the new clause late in the day?
The effect of the proposal seems to be that immigration officers will be drafted to various parts of the world, where they will clear passengers at ports of departure, or during flights and sea passages. As the Minister said, the point of the provision is to overcome some of the problems of queues, which we have all experienced at some of our major ports, especially at Heathrow airport. As we all know, during peak periods queues create great difficulties at Heathrow. There is tremendous congestion and there are difficulties in getting trolleys. People cannot get their baggage quickly. It is a shambles there, and something has to be done to improve the position.
We have some further worries about pre-clearance. We might end up with a three-tier immigration service. The Minister said that the airlines of the relevant countries may make an application to carry out pre-clearance work. We shall see how that develops. Our worry is that one tier of the immigration service could be dealing with the visa countries, which, as we all know, are almost exclusively black Commonwealth countries.
There might be a second tier of non-visa countries, which are predominantly white, and, of course, there will be the super-privileged countries, whose carriers will be able to use these facilities. This category embraces countries such as Australia and the United States.
It is important to get it on record that we believe that it would be wrong for the sort of service to which the Minister referred to be arranged in such a way that it was available only for white people, with a second-class arrangement for black people. We are also worried that there could be some losers if there were a multi-tier immigration service.
Can the Minister tell us how the fees will be recovered? I am not sure how the scheme will work in detail, but presumably when an immigration officer is asked to go overseas to carry out pre-clearance work, his passage fee and living expenses will be met, as well as his salary and pension and all the other things that go with that. How will the charges be spread? Will they be wholly met by the airline, or by the applicant concerned? How will these services operate for Bangladesh and other countries in the Indian sub-continent?
I want to touch on the working conditions of immigration officers. As I have mentioned, we have picked up their concern that they will be expected to work on a rota basis, rather like airline cabin crews. What discussions has the Minister had with the Civil Service unions, and are they happy with the arrangements? If the arrangement is extended substantially, it will involve moving a considerable number of people around the world. Does that mean that staff will be diverted from their existing


work to provide the new services and that the establishment in such places as Lunar house may fall, with a further deterioration in services?

Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's desire to clear up the delays in the posts abroad is in direct contrast to the chaos and crisis in Lunar house, where over 200,000 letters are lying unopened? The new clause may well result in vital members of the service at Lunar house being diverted abroad, leading to further chaos and crisis in Croydon.

Mr. Randall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Unquestionably, there is a shambles there. It is a public scandal that an Administration should operate in such a way that 200,000 letters are unopened. I understand that letters that arrived in November 1987 are only now being opened.

Mr. Vaz: It is disgraceful.

Mr. Randall: It is indeed an appalling situation.
If the new clause is passed, what will happen to staffing levels? If we take staff away to provide immigration services for the super-privileged, those who rely on services from Lunar house may lose. I should like an assurance that the Minister has taken that point on board and that we will not be providing services for the rich white traveller at the expense of the poor black traveller.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman admits that many Home Office employees are working very effectively and with great dedication in many uncomfortable parts of the world as entry clearance officers. We are not asking immigration officers who go abroad to carry out a very strange and different job.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Nevertheless, although I am sure that he is right, we are discussing a substantial change in working conditions for many people who have started jobs in the immigration service assuming that they will be port-based, rather than having high-flying, jet-setting lifestyles. That may not be conducive to the interests of some people. It is possible to be frivolous about this matter, but it is important to establish whether the Minister has considered it and has had full consultations with the trade unions to find out whether they are happy. I have picked up some feedback which suggests that there are reservations.
I also fear that the move towards pre-clearance immigration procedures may be the first step towards the privatisation of the immigration service. In that event, immigration officers would be moved around the world at the behest of the airlines, which would, in fact, be the customers. It does not require much imagination to see how the involvement of an airline in the immigration services could be extended to checking documentation before people enter the aircraft. They already do some of that work, but where is the limit? It appears that the Home Office would have an opportunity to divest itself of those responsibilities and sell off that part of Government activity to the private sector.
I should like the Minister to comment on those points, which represent our main worries about the new clause.

Mr. John Cartwright: I rise briefly to welcome the aims of the new clause. Anyone who has arrived at Heathrow or Gatwick in the early hours after

an overnight flight and seen the appalling queues of people trying to go through immigration must welcome any proposals that will make arrival for overseas visitors less time-consuming and frustrating. No doubt some of us have experience of arriving in foreign countries and having to spend a good deal of time trying to go through immigration. I have occasionally taken at least an hour to get through immigration in Dallas, Washington and certainly Miami, so I have some idea of what is involved.
Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), I feel that the Minister could have given us rather more detail about how the arrangements will operate. Rather than being based in this country dealing with the problem, immigration officers will be based in airports overseas. The Minister told us that the system would not be forced on airline operators against their will, but would apply only where they themselves had requested it. Presumably, that might mean immigration officers being available for perhaps one flight a day, or a couple of flights a week, from one city by one airline.
If, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West suggested, staff are to be moved from this country to do the job, there must be a question mark over the economics if they are not fully utilised, because a limited number of operators take the opportunity presented by the new clause. If, on the other hand, the Minister intends staff already based at the embassy or the high commission overseas to deal with the problem, they will presumably be taken off work that they are currently doing. Either way, some staffing costs overseas must be involved.
All that the Minister has so far offered is a superficially attractive arrangement—which I certainly welcome. As we had no opportunity of exploring it in any depth in Committee—we only heard about it, without having the form of the new clause before us—it would be helpful if the Minister now spelled out, in rather more detail, how it will work.

Mr. John Fraser: Unlike the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), I have not had the advantage of arriving day in, day out, at Heathrow airport from such prestigious places as Dallas and Miami. I must belong to the wrong travel club. Perhaps there is an SDP travel club that makes such experiences rather easier.
I must say that I see some sense in the Minister's proposal. What worries me is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) pointed out, we shall have a first-class and a second-class service. I can see Pan Am and TWA advertising, and having their own special terminals and immigration offices to make it easier for people to come from, say, the United States. I am not against any sensible kind of clearance, as long as there is an equal standard of performance for all travellers.
Unlike the hon. Member for Woolwich, I tend to arrive on the ferry from Boulogne, rather than flying from Dallas to Heathrow. I find, however, that the immigration reception at Dover is often disgracefully long. It is possible to sit in a car for half an hour trying to get through the passport facilities. That does not give a very good impression of this country. When travelling from one European country to another, it is possible to get across to customs within seconds. Often, no one wants to look at the passports. However, arriving back at Dover, even a United Kingdom citizen has to queue for half an hour along with other EEC citizens, waiting for clearance. If the


system is to operate, let it be extended to the Channel ports to make clearance easier not only for overseas citizens, but for our own citizens.

Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the delays caused by customs and excise purposes are far greater than those caused by immigration?

Mr. Fraser: I have made a special note of this matter. I keep saying, "Next time I get the chance to raise it in the House of Commons, I shall do so." Well, now is my chance. The delays are not caused by Customs and Excise. It is passports that cause the often long delays at Dover. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I have made a special note of the fact. I have kept meaning to mention it, and I am mentioning it now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West mentioned the absolutely disgraceful situation at Lunar house. I was on the telephone to Lunar house a few days ago, and my hon. Friend's comments were confirmed. Letters are only now being opened that arrived in November 1987. That can lead to the most extraordinary problems. The first thing that the Government should do about that is to get out of Lunar house all the applications that have been made for registration for United Kingdom citizenship.
Great teams of people have opened envelopes for privatisation ventures. I do not see why some of them should not be temporarily recruited at least to open those envelopes at Lunar house. When the Government were selling shares in British Petroleum, British Gas and British Telecom, millions of applications were opened within 24 hours. Why is it that, when people apply for leave to continue their stay in the United Kingdom and send their letters to Lunar house, they must wait three or four months for their letters to be opened, as opposed to those who applied for British Gas shares and who found that their envelopes were opened within 24 hours? That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend made from the Front Bench.
I should like to give one illustration of the sort of hardship that is being caused. Someone I know made an application to Lunar house to continue his stay in the United Kingdom. He has been here as a business man for some time. It is normal procedure to send in accounts and to ask for a further stay of 12 months. He made the application, but his wife happened to be out of the country in Vancouver, where she had had a baby. She wants to get back into this country to join her husband.
The husband has made his application, but because his wife is coming back to the United Kingdom to join him as a dependant, it is not possible for her to obtain a dependant's visa in Canada, unless the person upon whom she is dependent has cleared his immigration status in the United Kingdom. That woman has been waiting with her child for three months to get back into the United Kingdom on an application which is bound to be approved. Her passport is now running out in Canada, as is her visa. She is likely to be considered an illegal immigrant there, liable to arrest—with her young child — simply because somebody at Lunar house cannot open the envelope.
That is just one example of the many problems that are occurring. The Minister must address his mind to the difficulty about mail at Lunar house. He must realise what

a mess that is making of immigration control. As he knows, as long as one gets an application into Lunar house before leave to be in the United Kingdom expires, and once the envelope is delivered in Croydon, leave is automatically continued. There are many people whose leave is being continued, sometimes against their will. Some people, whose passports are in unopened envelopes at Lunar house, would like to get their passports back so that they can leave the country. However, not even they can escape because it is not possible to identify any case unless one sends the letter by recorded delivery and marks the number of the case on the outside of the envelope.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Although to a great extent I share the hon. Gentleman's feelings, I think that in fairness he would agree that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has acknowledged the problems at Lunar house, which have been caused almost as a direct result of the Government's advertisement of the means by which potential citizens could take up their rights before the deadline—which I believe was 31 December 1987.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, during the debate last month, my hon. Friend the Minister of State made several positive efforts toward reducing that backlog and increasing the efficiency at Lunar house. Those of us who served in Committee on the Bill recognised that there was a problem. We have not been talking in a partisan way; we have been talking—

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman did not say anything in Committee.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is making an entirely unfair accusation. I shall give way to him, so that he can make a statement publicly.

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Fraser: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have interventions on interventions.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has dealt humanely and efficiently with all the cases that I have taken up with him on behalf of the nearly 10 per cent. of my constituents who are immigrants. Where there was any doubt about any application, he has always exercised his discretion in favour of the applicant.

Mr. Fraser: I was not intending to make a partisan speech—I never apologise for making such a speech—I was simply trying to be helpful. I want the Minister to operate the same kind of efficiency at Lunar house as Littlewoods operates in Liverpool and as Rothschild and Barings operate in relation to privatisation issues—to open the envelopes and sort the letters so that the registration applications can be put in a separate pile because people are not greatly inconvenienced by a delay in their registration; although I concede that there will be priority cases.
On the whole, however, applicants will not be greatly embarrassed by a delay in registration. That would enable the staff at Lunar house, who on the whole are pretty devoted, to get on with the essential job of clearing the backlog of immigration applications that rests there. If the Minister does not do that, he will bring his Department further into disrepute, and, what is more, will create a great deal of unpopularity, frustration and anger with his own staff who operate in Lunar house.
Let us give the people who make legitimate applications to Croydon the same privileges as people who post their pools or apply for shares.

Mr. Hanley: I welcome the new clause. I am surprised that any Opposition Members should seek to create some sort of synthetic indignation in trying to oppose it, albeit with their voices and not their votes.
The new clause not only facilitates travellers coming to this country—for that reason, I should have thought that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) would welcome it because it means that clearance is that much easier before a person comes here— but it reduces the pressure at our ports of entry. I should have thought that those who claim to represent trade union members would welcome that as reducing the work load and pressure on their members at our ports of entry. It seems an extremely sensible idea. I hope that it will catch on and that many carriers will avail themselves of the excellent opportunity.
While talking about Lunar house, one should remind hon. Members that Labour Members voted against an initiative that my hon. Friend the Minister of State put forward to reduce the cases at Lunar house by about 40,000 per year. Those clauses benefited five times more people than they hindered. Therefore, I find it surprising that Opposition Members should harp on this matter when we know full well that my hon. Friend is facing this serious problem constructively in trying to review the manning levels at Lunar house.

Mr. Madden: The number of questions that have been asked in this short debate and the number of bits of paper that are fluttering towards the Minister from the civil servants' Box highlight the fact that he would have been much wiser to table the new clause in Committee. That would have enabled all the questions that have been asked today to be put then and would have enabled the Minister to give some explanations.
I should like to ask three questions. I agree entirely with hon. Members who have said that the inevitable consequence of the pre-entry clearance arrangements will be the establishment of another category of entry. It will be primarily for white people and although in some cases it will be for black and Asian people, in all cases it will be for people who are well off, because clearly there will be a fee for arrangement. Therefore, only the well-off will be able to take advantage of it.
My first question is, what happens to the predominantly white and in all cases well-off passenger who seeks to pay a fee to get a "grant to leave" entry stamp in his or her passport, but does not get such a stamp put in his or her passport overseas? The carriers — the airlines—may well refuse to take such a person because she or he has not got the "grant to leave" put in his or her passport. However, it would be a breach of natural justice if they did that, because they would be presupposing that the passenger would not be given a grant to leave when he or she arrived in the United Kingdom.
I assume that the Minister will turn his face against any right of appeal—he turns his face against all rights of appeal—and I therefore ask him what will happen to a passenger who is refused a grant to leave under the pre-entry clearance arrangements and therefore a seat by the airline. I see the piece of paper going to the civil servants' Box, so I hope that by the time I have finished my remarks the Minister will he able to answer me.
5.30 pm
Secondly, what will be the estimated annual cost of the arrangements—in net and gross terms— to the British taxpayer? I assume that the Home Office has made estimates to ascertain the revenue implications of the arrangements. It would be very helpful if we could be given some idea of those implications.
Thirdly, what consultations have taken place with organisations representing immigration officers about the terms and conditions under which immigration officers will be expected to fulfil their responsibilities under the pre-entry clearance arrangements? Will the same requirements apply to those responsibilities as currently apply to transfer directions to immigration officers? I understand that immigration officers cannot refuse transfer directions and that a refusal to comply with such a direction is a disciplinary matter. Will the Minister assure us that refusal to accept a direction to participate in the proposed overseas pre-entry clearance arrangements will not be regarded as a disciplinary matter? What consultations have taken place over the terms, and conditions that will apply under the new arrangements?
I agree with my hon. Friends who have criticised the present administrative chaos at Lunar house. Home Office Ministers talk as though there was something surprising about the large number of applications for registration. They had seven years to plan for those applications. They had almost a year to plan for them in considerable detail. We know that they did their best to keep the arrangements secret and to dissuade people from applying, but it is brass-necked of the Department and the Minister of State then to keep telling us that the words across the entrance of the Home Office are, "We are here to please."
The Minister says that he wants to provide a good consumer service and that that is the objective of the Home Office, yet customers who are being asked to apply for registration and pay £60 for it are being kept waiting month upon month while their applications are dealt with. It is an administrative disgrace that the Government did not appoint sufficient staff or make sufficient resources available to deal expeditiously with all the applications that they expected months and months ago at Lunar house. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to explain what action is being taken to deal with the chaos at Lunar house.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I understand that the new clause was not discussed in Committee and that we are therefore discussing something new. I do not want to make a long speech, but I should tell the Minister that at one stage in my life I had great difficulty with immigration authorities—the immigration authorities of the United States of America.
I happened to win a scholarship to the United States. I made my application, and everything seemed fine, but then the authorities discovered that in my youth I had been a member of the Communist party. I received a letter saying that I would not be allowed into the United States of America—luckily, before I arrived there. Then I had to get, as I put it, a letter from the holy ghost. I needed a letter from the theological college at Birkenhead, at which I lectured fairly regularly, and the general secretary of the TUC had to vouch for me as a fine upstanding young man who was no longer a member of the Communist party. I


was damned annoyed, because I thought that Communists or anyone else should have the right to go to the United States of America.
I make that point because I am worried about the provision that an individual who gets his card stamped and comes to this country can be refused entry if he is examined and an immigration officer decides that he may not be the person he purports to be. What happens at that stage? Surely the stamp on the passport should not be given before a person leaves unless it is absolutely clear that he is the individual concerned. Surely that can be ascertained from the photograph and so on. The provision could lead to all sorts of difficulties.
I am very much in favour of a provision that speeds up entry into this country. I have had many difficulties with the present arrangement. For example, my wife has a cousin who is a Baptist minister, responsible for quite a large circuit in the south of England. Two young Baptists from Poland came to stay with him. The House has no idea of the difficulties that they encountered. I might add that they were white. Imagine the difficulties that they would have had if they had been black. A young girl in my constituency has a Moroccan boy friend. He proposed to visit for only two weeks, but nevertheless there were letters and everything else.
I will welcome the new clause if it helps to get people in more quickly. We will send immigration officers abroad to examine the individuals concerned, and if they are satisfied and stamp the card, the individual will come in quickly. No one objects to that. It is fine; it is an improvement. However, I should like some further explanation of what will happen if the immigration authorities here decide that the person seeking entry may not be the person whom he purports to be. I should like a safeguard, so that if the individual concerned knows people in this country, he will have the right to get in touch with them immediately and appeal to them for help without further difficulty. Such a safeguard is not included in the new clause, which says nothing about appeals or the right of the individual. That is an important matter.

Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has finished."] I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had finished his speech. I shall answer his question in my reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) concluded his speech?

Mr. Heffer: Yes, I have.

Mr. Vaz: I should like to speak briefly and raise two matters with the Minister.
First, we welcome any proposals that will result in a reduction in delays in the immigration service. We are concerned about the delays that have occurred at Lunar house in Croydon. I visited Lunar house last Monday and saw a number of the 200,000 letters that have remained unopened there. The Minister visited Lunar house on Friday of last week. I hope that he will tell the House what he saw on his visit and what proposals he has to reduce the delays there.
Secondly, the Minister is prepared to send immigration officers all over the world to reduce delays. We know that he is prepared to send his immigration officers to Leicester,

because we understand that a meeting is taking place there this evening at which an address will be given by five senior officials of the Home Office. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is present, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and I were not informed of that visit until 11 February. That was 24 hours after I had tabled a question asking the Minister why immigration officials were visiting Leicester without its Members of Parliament being informed. A better approach would have been to keep the five senior officials at Croydon and put them to work opening those 200,000 letters.

Mr. Renton: I shall answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but first I should like to thank him and my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for their support for the proposal in the new clause.
The new clause deals only with giving immigration officers, in laymen's terms, new powers to tackle preclearance matters. It does not concern appeals, which we shall discuss shortly. We carried out a pre-clearance trial at Kennedy airport at the end of last year. I should stress to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that no one has to go through pre-clearance. It is a voluntary operation for passengers.
Those who went through pre-clearance at Kennedy airport had their passports and landing cards stamped with the suitable stamp for entry into the United Kingdom. When they entered the United Kingdom, they were required to show the passport and the landing card with the appropriate stamp on it so that the immigration officer here could link the two and ensure that the person carrying the passport, by virtue of the landing card, was the person concerned. That was the system used for the trial. Whether we shall use it if we set it up more generally remains to be seen.
I should stress to hon. Members who have queried the matter that this is only an enabling clause. We have not had discussions with trade unions representing the immigration service, and as yet it has not been fully costed. We intend that this operation should wash its face completely, but we did not think it appropriate to cost it until we had received agreement to this enabling power from the House.
Those who say that we did not discuss the matter in Committee, such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), are wrong. We discussed it in Committee — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes we did. We did not discuss this clause, because it was not tabled, but we discussed the principle of pre-clearance entry during the debate on 21 January. I accept that hon. Members were running out of steam by that time. They had gone on for 62 hours and were not very interested in this process.
5.45 pm
We discussed the matter in relation to clause 7, and I shall quote two of the remarks that I made during the debate. I said:
Since then, we have received requests for additional immigration officers from commercial operators who will be prepared to pay for an enhanced service. Additional services might be provided when an operator seeks a greater number of immigration officers on the control at particular times and places than would be justified by the overall traffic pattern, or when an operator seeks special control arrangements for a particular flight.


That was a broad outline of what we had in mind. I continued:
But in order to introduce those arrangements on a more permanent and routine basis it is necessary to extend the powers of immigration officers. We shall table an amendment at a later stage to facilitate pre-clearance arrangements. It is right that the Committee should be made aware of that potential arrangement." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 21 January 1988; c. 724–25.]
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Walton will not be aware of that matter because they did not serve on the Committee. I would not expect them to have read the minutes of our Committee proceedings. For those hon. Members who served on the Committee to pretend that they did not know that we had this in mind is to stand the facts on their head. It would be far better to agree that, in broad terms, this is a good idea and that it is intended to facilitate movement through our airports to prevent congestion.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to a shambles at Heathrow. It must be encouraging for immigration officers who work at terminals 2 and 3 to hear the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesman use those words. He should at least give credit for the fact that the shambles is very much less now—

Mr. Vaz: It is the Government's fault.

Mr. Renton: No. There has been less of a shambles since we introduced the visa system for countries of the Indian sub-continent. Anyone who has visited terminals 2 and 3 will know that that is so.

Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that since the visa system was introduced there have been no improvements for people going through Heathrow or in the number of people detained there? The Minister must recognise that there is a shambles at Heathrow. It is a modern airport, providing supposedly modern facilities. If he accepts what is happening at Heathrow, his appreciation of an effective airport must be limited.

Mr. Renton: This is straying rather far from the purpose of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman may fly down from Hull in a local British aeroplane. I do not know how he is treated when he arrives at Heathrow. Since I took over my responsibilities I have visited Heathrow many times. I have visited terminals 2 and 3 during the busy periods of the day. I know that the difficulties with congestion—immigration officers will bear this out—are nothing like what they were in the autumn of 1986 when we introduced the visa arrangements. The hon. Gentleman should visit Heathrow when the trans-continental aeroplanes land, and he would see the truth of what I say.

Mr. Greville Janner: Recently, I visited a terminal and found a queue of people waiting to enter. I was told that some of them had had to wait for over two hours because there were not enough immigration officers. The amount of time that people had to wait depended on the number of jumbo aircraft arriving at the time. Nothing could be done about it. It was entirely the Government's fault, because there were not enough immigration officers. It was a shambolic chaos. It is a disgrace that visitors have to wait in such queues. Matters have not improved, because the rules have been used as an excuse for keeping down the number of immigration officers, instead of improving arrangements for our visitors.

Mr. Renton: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is normally reasonable and accurate, should talk in that manner. What he said about queues at terminals 2 and 3 is incorrect. If there are delays of two hours during the difficult early-morning slots, I can only say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that they would have been much worse in the autumn of 1986. That, in any event, is precisely why we are introducing these arrangements in clause 7 and in the new clause. That is the last time that I shall give way.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister take it from me that we have received a number of reports that people at terminal 4—I notice that he has not referred to this terminal— are regularly required to sleep on the floor overnight because of continued delays since the introduction of visas? I ask again: what will happen to passengers who volunteer for the pre-clearance arrangement and are not granted leave to enter? Will they have rights of appeal against a refusal by a carrier to bring them into the United Kingdom?

Mr. Renton: I stress again that this system has had only one trial experiment. This is an enabling clause and we have not yet gone into lengthy discussions with the trade unions or carriers about it.
I pointed out two things to the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago. First, no one is required to go through preclearance—it is a voluntary business. If someone went through pre-clearance and was refused by the immigration officer, I assume that the officer would think it appropriate to point that out to the carrier, because the carrier would not want to have to pay a potential fine of £1,000. There would be no appeal in this country in that circumstance. In a country in which a visa was required, however, the applicant would have every reason to go back to our consulate to find out what had gone wrong and to discuss the matter with the immigration officer. This is, as I said, a voluntary business.
Have there been discussions with the trade unions? Not yet. This is an enabling power, and pre-clearance will take place only if requested by the operator and if the immigration service agrees. If the House agrees with the clause and we go ahead with it, we shall discuss any arrangements with the trade unions before they are introduced.
To hon. Members who asked about costs, I say clearly that the intention will be to recover the full costs, including those of the staff involved in operating a pre-clearance system. In each case it will be for the carrying company that requests the service to decide whether the charges we will require it to pay are reasonable or acceptable. Our intention will be to recover the full costs. The carrier will then have to decide whether it wants to go ahead with preclearance. That also answers the point made by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who has now left the Chamber.
To answer the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, who asked why we did not mention this in Committee — we did. I have already quoted from Hansard to show that. To go further than that, the trial in New York was conducted last October. The evaluation was not completed until after Christmas. The policy decision on whether to go forward with this was not decided until the trial had been evaluated, when the new clause had to be drafted. That is why I gave the Committee


a clear idea of our intent on the matter, so that there should be no surprise when we brought the matter before the House on Report.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West implied that the pre-clearance arrangement might have something to do with the financial status of the passenger. If he meant that, he was not correct. The service will be provided at the request of the carrier only. The passenger will not pay, and that will be the end of the matter. As I have already said, the passenger does not have to present himself for preclearance—he can decline to do so.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said that he had heard some rumbles from the trade union side of the immigration service to the effect that it was worried about this provision. The immigration service has an active trade union side—that is good—but I have heard no such rumbles. If we go ahead with this, we shall consider and discuss it in full with the immigration service.
The question of the delays at Lunar house was raised by the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), for Bradford, West and for Norwood. The hon. Member for Norwood raised the issue in moderate terms. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will allow me to deal with that matter straight away. I want to put a few points about it on the record.
First, it is typical of the hon. Member for Leicester, East that the first thing he did in the debate was to get up and talk about the chaos at Lunar house. He asked my Department to arrange a visit for him to Lunar house on Monday 10 days ago. We arranged it at considerable expense of management time. He arrived 45 minutes late, spent only one and a half hours there and the first thing we knew of it was that he had left and told the home affairs correspondent of The Independent about the chaos at Lunar house and about how we are proposing to privatise the operation.
What did I hear at Lunar house on Friday? I heard great concern from the trade union side about whether the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East were justified. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that was a helpful way to deal with the problems at Lunar house, which certainly exist, I suggest that it would have been much more helpful — I can see the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West nodding in agreement with what I am saying—

Mr. Janner: I am agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Leicester, East must be an uncomfortable neighbour for the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West.

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Janner: He makes a change from Bruinvels.

Mr. Renton: "Bring back Bruinvels; all is forgiven," is the cry from the House, I am sure.
I do not often speak about my meetings with hon. Members. In fact, I make it a habit not to. However, I must say that the hon. Member for Leicester, East came to see me the following day about a constituency case. It would have been more helpful and appropriate, given that my Department had arranged his visit for him, at his request, the day before, if he had talked to me about the

difficulties and asked me about our proposals for solving them, rather than running—publicity-seeking, as always —to a national newspaper to air his worries.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister was in Committee for more than 62 hours. On every occasion during every sitting of the Committee this matter was raised with him. It is high time that the matter came before the public, rather than being covered up by the Minister and his officials at the Home Office. What proposals does he have to end the delays? He should tell us that, rather than indulging in a personal attack on another hon. Member.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's lack of courtesy is typical of him and disturbing to the staff at Lunar house, who did their best to show him everything that he wanted to see on Monday.
I come now to our proposals and to a little background. I fully accept that the delays that are experienced by applicants at Lunar house are unacceptable, and I shall detail the steps being taken to remedy them.
I stress to all hon. Members that the backlog is largely due to the great surge in applications for registration for citizenship that we received in the last two months of last year, particularly in December. In 1986, we received 37,900 applications for registration, and 19,000 for naturalisation. We estimate that in 1987 we received six times that number of registrations for citizenship, and three times as many applications for naturalisation. That came to a total of 291,000 applications, in contrast to the 57,000 that we had received the year before.
It is ironic that the Labour party, which castigated us throughout the autumn of last year for not advertising the deadline for registration well enough, should now castigate us—by implication—for having advertised it too well. We put out many advertisements and forms, and as a result we received a large number of applications.
Before I detail the specific steps that we will take, I hope that the House, including the hon. Member for Leicester, East, will pay tribute to the magnificent efforts of the staff in the immigration and nationality department at Lunar house in coping with the huge influx of citizenship applications before the deadline on 31 December last year.
6 pm
The staff worked under sustained pressure, including long hours of overtime before Christmas and between Christmas and the deadline of 31 December. They dealt with many thousands of last-minute requests for application forms, and a very large number of requests for advice about citizenship status in letters and from personal callers. But the scale of the increased flow of work is so large that those measures, and the efforts of the available staff to serve the department's customers, would be insufficient to process the cases through the initial stages —sending acknowledgements, accounting for fees paid and so on—within a reasonable time within the present method of working. Therefore, after detailed discussions with the trade union side, we have introduced, as an emergency measure, a large-scale redeployment of staff to undertake those initial stages.

Mr. Madden: Ha!

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Bradford, West laughs, but I should have thought that he would be pleased. However, as always, he is a constant surprise to me.
About 160 staff have been redeployed from a significant part of their normal duties to open unsorted applications, to account for the fees, and to acknowledge receipt. As part of this process we are returning to applicants any passports and other documents that were submitted with applications. This is to avoid the inconvenience to applicants of their being deprived of travel documents— I appreciate the inconvenience that that causes — while the applications are under consideration.
We are also going to recruit more full-time staff for the post room, registry and nationality division, and we are carrying out an urgent examination of the means and resources that will be required to process the applications in a reasonable time. As I have said—it was especially acknowledged by the hon. Member for Norwood—the primary objective at this stage is to acknowledge applications as soon as possible and to return documents and passports submitted with applications. It is my hope that these processes will be complete within several weeks.

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Renton: I shall not give way to the hon. Member any more.
I assure the House that if we bring in such arrangements for pre-clearance it will not be at the expense of any standard arrangements or standard level of service at United Kingdom ports and airports. We will do it simply as a service to any airline that requests it, no matter where a flight may have started from. Therefore, it will not be a service for whites rather than for blacks. It will be available for anyone who wishes it, provided that the request comes from an airline, we agree a fee and we are able to work out the details. I believe that these are thoroughly sensible arrangements, and I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

VARIATION OF LEAVE: APPEAL PROCEDURES

`In subsection (2) of section 19 of the Immigration Act 1971 all the words after "based" shall be omitted.'.—[Mr.Randall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Randall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This matter was discussed at length in Committee. There was considerable concern about the way in which the Minister attempted to describe how certain procedures, particularly those associated with variation of leave, worked. As a result of the dispute in Committee, we felt it necessary to introduce the new clause.
The purpose of the clause is to give the appellate authorities powers that are outside the existing rules. This would enable the authorities, during variation of leave appeals, to take compassionate circumstances into account. On numerous occasions in Committee—I could present all the Official Report quotations to the House, but I shall not do so because we have a lot of business to get through — the Minister described how he thought the arrangements for the appeal procedures worked. Frankly, I believe that the Minister either failed to understand how the system worked, or he was given bad advice.
Without doubt, great concern was created by the Minister's inability to get things right. On 28 January a letter was sent to the Minister from the general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the director of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and the president of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. The letter set out their deep concern over the effects of clause 4 and said the Minister's justification for its introduction was based upon a fallacy.
The Minister suggested that there was no reason to think that when deportation cases were heard com-passionate circumstances would no longer be taken into account. He said that during earlier stages of variation of leave appeals such matters were fully taken into account.
We now know that that argument is utter tripe. The people who are involved with immigration matters have categorically demonstrated that the Minister is wrong. It is clear that the Minister does not know what he is talking about. I believe that clause 4 should be withdrawn because of the way in which it removes certain basic rights from people when appeal procedures are operated.
In Committee on 17 December, the Minister said:
The decision to refuse further leave to remain, and the hearing of the appeal against that decision, provide the proper opportunity for compassionate factors to be taken into account … That is the point in the appeal procedure when facts, merit and compassionate circumstances should be considered.

Mr. Renton: That is right.

Mr. Randall: Let me prove why I believe that the Minister has got it wrong.
In Committee we talked about what happens in practice. We know that section 19(2) of the principal Act precludes the appellate authorities from making any decisions on matters outside the immigration rules that involve compassionate circumstances. Therefore, the appellate authorities are forbidden to make a decision involving compassionate circumstances.
I believe that the Minister recognised that, because he said:
it is open to the adjudicator to take account of the compassionate circumstances of the case. When he regards the compassionate circumstances as compelling … he may, even while formally dismissing the appeal, recommend that the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion in the appellant's favour and allow him to remain." — [Official Report. Standing Committee D, 17 December 1987, c. 388–923.
In other words, an adjudicator who is compelled by the immigration rules to make a decision against an applicant may, if he or she chooses, temper that by recommending that the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion outside the immigration rules and allow the appellant to stay. The Minister acknowledges that the appellate authorities do not have a formal responsibility, although anyone can make recommendations. The crucial point on which the Minister's argument is so misleading is that representations are never made.
I have spoken to people in the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service who deal with such cases daily. One gentleman told me that in three years of case work he had come across one recommendation. I am surprised that the Minister is not aware of the reality.
There is only one means whereby that information can be conveyed to the Home Secretary, and that is on the determination of a case,. When the appellate authority reviews a case, it produces a determination which is sent to the Home Office and to all the agencies, which make


representations on behalf of the person concerned. Everyone is aware when a recommendation is made to the Home Secretary to take into account compassionate circumstances. Of course, the Minister, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who is grinning, and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) were party to that.

Mr. Renton: I shall deal with whether adjudicators make informal representations to the Home Secretary in my reply if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. However, I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that there was no contradiction between what I said at column 391 of Hansard and what I said at a later sitting at column 759. Both those comments say precisely the same thing, at column 759 at greater length. At column 391, I said:
The adjudicator may have to dismiss an appeal on the facts, but can, if he chooses, make a recommendation for compassionate consideration to the Secretary of State." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 December 1987; c. 391.]
At column 759, I said:
If he judges that the compassionate circumstances are such as to merit exceptional treatment, he can informally recommend to the Secretary of State that he should allow the person concerned to remain by the exercise of his discretion outside the immigration rules. Any such recommendations are considered seriously." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 January 1988; c. 759.]
I stand by both those remarks. They fit each other and they are accurate.

Mr. Randall: The Minister knows that hon. Members and those involved in the provision of services to immigrants know that in Committee, he got it wrong. The Minister quotes parts of the Official Report where he was reading from a brief, but at other times he was freewheeling.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Come on.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman speaks from a sedentary position, but he was not there. One can distinguish between the times when the Minister was speaking from a brief and when he was not. That is why we are so concerned about the way in which the Minister is dealing with these matters.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman should be concerned. When I said in Committee that adjudicators could, if they dismissed an appeal, deal with compassionate circumstances through recommendations to the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman said that I was talking nonsense. That proved that he did not know the first thing about immigration. That was a statement from an Opposition spokesman new to his portfolio—within a week. He was saying that I did not know what I was talking about after I had served for years on the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. Now he must admit that he was wrong and that I was right.

Mr. Randall: That is absolute nonsense. During a variation of appeal proceedings, compassionate circumstances are no part of any decision made by the appellate authority. That is a fact.

Mr. Hanley: It is official.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman says that it is official. It is not at all official. In reality, any of the members of the appellate authority could write whatever they wished on a determination. They could write that, if the case were to lead to deportation proceedings, they would recommend that the Home Secretary takes into account compassionate circumstances. However, in reality, they do not do that. The chief appellate officer has put it on record that he believes that the variation of appeal procedure is not the time and place to raise compassionate circumstances. He believes that they should be reviewed as part and parcel of the deportation procedure, which is a separate procedure, with different criteria.
First, the appellate authority may not, by virtue of the rules, make any decision taking into account such matters. Secondly, although anyone could recommend to the Home Secretary that, later on, compassionate circumstances might be taken into account if deportation is involved, in reality that is not done. That is a fact which has been substantiated to me by the people involved.

Mr. Hanley: It is hearsay.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman says that it is hearsay. Is he suggesting that because the chief appellate officer is saying what I am saying it is hearsay—when it is a comment by a man in that position?
The Minister cannot get away with it. He has suggested that compassionate circumstances are involved in the appeal procedures, and he used that argument to justify clause 4 and say that it would be acceptable. Clause 4 removes the appeal procedures from those who have been in the United Kingdom for fewer than seven years. The justification for doing that was that compassionate circumstances do not need to be taken into account at this stage because they will already have been taken into account. That is nonsense. It is a disgrace that the Minister did not make it perfectly clear. He has not done the proper research and made it clear that in Committee he was wrong.
I suggest that the Minister should admit that he was wrong and apologise from the Dispatch Box. If he admits that he did not understand what he was saying, or that he now understands what he is saying, he should support the new clause, which provides that compassionate circumstances should be taken into account and be made part and parcel of the decision-making process by the appellate authority. If the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes believes that that happens anyway, what is his reason for not voting for the new clause? Let us put into the statute what the hon. Gentleman and the Minister have said happens already. I suggest that they put their votes where their mouths are. This is a chance to test whether they genuinely support this idea.
I am confident that Conservative Members will fail to vote for the new clause, because they will do what their Whip says, and because, if they were to support the new clause they would be accepting that during variation, or even refusal to enter appeals, compassionate circumstances should be taken into account. Therefore, clause 4 will go on to the statute book when it should have been withdrawn by the Government because of the way in which it takes away basic rights of appeal. It is wrong, and it is a measure of how uncivilised and uncaring our society is.
To deport people without taking all the compassionate circumstances into account is deplored by Opposition Members, and that is why we believe that it is crucial that the House should support new clause 1. It is a good clause, which is worthy of support. If the Minister believes what he has said in the past, he too should support it. It seeks only to do what the Minister has claimed is already happening, but he will vote against it because he does not want such appeal procedures to be put into the statute. He should be straight with the House, come clean, admit that he made a mistake and vote for new clause 1.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said—

Mr. Randall: Here come the insults.

Mr. Renton: No, I shall not insult the hon. Gentleman. I shall deny that we had a dispute. I shall simply say that there is a complete lack of understanding between us. There is a complete lack of understanding on the hon. Gentleman's part of the procedure of adjudicators when they are looking at cases within the rules and decide that, on the facts, they will not allow the variation of leave, but do make a recommendation, informal or otherwise, to the Home Secretary, suggesting that he might exercise his discretion.
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding—

Mr. Randall: rose—

Mr. Renton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman lets me finish this point.

Mr. Randall: The Minister never answers my questions.

Mr. Renton: I am about to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I suggest that he gives me a chance to do so.
I realise that the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding was stoked by a letter that I received, signed by Michael Barnes of UKIAS, Ian Macdonald of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and Ann Owers of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. However, I replied to that letter and, in all fairness, the hon. Gentleman should have quoted from my reply. I clearly said:
Moreover. the Home Office's experience is that the appelate authorities do make use of their freedom to recommend the use of the Secretary of State's discretion. If a recommendation is made on compassionate grounds the instructions to the immigration department's case workers are quite explicit in stating that the normal practice should be to comply with that recommendation. Such matters are treated very seriously indeed and any decision not to accept an adjudicator's recommendaton must be taken at senior level.
In Committee the hon. Gentleman asked me whether we kept statistics of the percentage of recommendations that were made on that basis which were and were not accepted. I said that we do not keep such statistics. However, I did ask Home Office officials to dig out a few recent cases where the adjudicator made a recommendation within the rules to the Secretary of State and where the recommendation was considered and, in most cases, accepted. I have them here and, if time permitted, I would gladly read them to the House. However, I do not think that that would please the House.
There are one or two examples here of where a recommendation was made which the Home Office did not accept—

Mr Hanley: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that the adjudicators are independently appointed?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. They are appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Therefore, they are quite independent of the Home Office.
If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will allow me to take a little more time, I shall refer to four examples. I shall refer to the people involved simply by initials, because it is inappropriate to name names in this context. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to come to my office and look at the cases, he is welcome to do so.
In July 1984, Mrs. D was refused indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a dependant of her stepson. Her appeal was dismissed, first by the adjudicator in August 1986, and finally by the tribunal in February 1987. The tribunal took the view— I am abbreviating this — that the circumstances were such that the Secretary of State could properly consider exercising his discretion in favour of Mrs. D outside the rules. It considered that if she had to return to Barbados it seemed that it would not be very long before she became dependant on her stepson. The Secretary of State accepted the tribunal's recommendation and in July 1987 Mrs. D was granted indefinite leave to remain.
The same applied to Mr. R, who arrived in the United Kingdom in August 1978. That was a case in which the arguments for accepting the recommendation from the adjudicator that he should be allowed to remain were far from clear-cut. But, after the adjudicator's view was subsequently endorsed by the tribunal, Mr. R was granted indefinite leave to remain in July 1987. I could continue ad infinitum—

Mr. Stuart Holland: It is striking that the Minister cites cases from 1978 and 1984. In what sense do those rare cases meet the points made in the letter by Michael Barnes, Ian Macdonald and Ann Owers that
The Deputy Director (Legal) of UKIAS estimates that, of the many hundreds of appeals he has dealt with over the last three years, in only one such appeal did an adjudicator make a recommendation"?
The Minister will realise how important this is to many of us in our constituency casework.

Mr. Renton: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this. He has many immigration cases himself. However, I stress that the cases that I have just mentioned are only two out of a bundle. Mrs. D's case started in July 1984 and finished in July 1987. I said that I had asked for recent cases. Mr. R arrived in the United Kingdom in August 1978, applied in September 1980 for the extension of stay to continue in work-permit employment, and in July 1987 was granted permission to stay.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the problems about Britain's treatment of immigration cases is that the superstructure of appeal upon appeal—the number of safeguards that we have given those who come here—to which we have added a Member of Parliament's representations, means that we arrive at a thicket within which the immigrant is well protected. He goes from one appeal to the next while the years drag on; at the end, after eight or nine years, it is almost inevitable that he be given leave to remain in Britain. That is one of the problems of our system and one reason why one must seek clarity and simplicity in it.
I could go on at length. The next case, which I did not mention because I wanted to save the time of the House, concerns a Miss M, who arrived in the United Kingdom in July 1986. The written determination of the adjudicator formally dismissed her appeal, but he recommended that the Secretary of State should exercise his discretion in her favour exceptionally outside the rules. That recommendation has been accepted.
That is the common working practice in the Home Office. Recommendations come up from cases within the rules to the Home Office. They are seriously considered and, in many cases, are accepted. As for the particular reference to one case only in the UKIAS/JCWI letter, there is, I think, a mistaken reference to the chief adjudicator's comments in giving his opinion in the case of Mostashari, because the letter implies that that was intended to be a general recommendation, but I think that it was a particular recommendation in specific regard to the case of Mostashari.

Mr. David Winnick: Bearing in mind that adjudicators are hardly likely to agree outside the immigration rules unless the compassionate circumstances are very compelling indeed, is there not a case for considering giving adjudicators and the tribunal, as this new clause would, the power in certain cases — they would be very few indeed—where the appellant would not qualify under the immigration laws because of the strictness of those rules, but where there is an overwhelming case on compassionate grounds, to allow the appeal; not simply to make a recommendation, but actually to allow the appeal? Adjudicators are hardly likely to act in an irresponsible manner.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the real point of this new clause, upon which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West did not touch. As I see it, the real point of the new clause is not on the question of adjudicators making more recommendations to the Home Office on cases that fall within the rules, but to give them the power to make recommendations, or indeed to decide, on cases that are outside the rules. That is precisely the point to which I now want to refer, because I think that this would be giving far too great a power to the appellate authorities. The hon. Gentleman, with his customary acuteness in these matters, has put his finger on the real problem or challenge that this new clause implies.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was quite wrong in thinking that if this new clause were accepted it would in any sense bite on the question of appeal rights of persons subject to deportation orders. That was implicit in his remarks, but it would not be so. The new clause does not bite on clause 4, because section 19 of the 1971 Act is subject to any restriction on the grounds of appeal.
The real problem regarding this new clause is that it would vastly extend the powers of adjudicators in cases that fall outside the rules. This would be a fundamental change of policy which would not be acceptable to us. It may help if I make it clear from the outset that in determining appeals, adjudicators are provided, under section 19 of the Act, with the ability to review the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion under the rules.
This discretion is available in a number of categories, the principal exclusion being visitors seeking extension of their stay beyond the maximum permitted by the rules. Where there is discretion under the law, account will be taken of any compassionate or other circumstances which may make a decision to refuse inappropriate. In reviewing the way in which the Secretary of State's discretion has been exercised, where it is available under the rules, adjudicators will in turn hear arguments about compassionate and other factors.
Section 19 sets out clearly that the jurisdiction of an adjudicator at an appeal is to dismiss an appeal unless he considers, first, that the decision or action against which the appeal was brought was not in accordance with the law or with any immigration rules applicable to the case; or, secondly, where the decision or action involved the exercise of a discretion, that the discretion should have been exercised differently.
The new clause would place upon the appellant authorities the task of reviewing the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion not only where the rules provided for this but also in all other cases where compassionate or other circumstances had been put forward in support of exceptional treatment outside the applicable rules.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that this would happen very rarely, but we can have no possible knowledge that that would be so. It would be a very great incentive to people who were refused their variation of leave by the adjudicators, in any circumstances outside the rules, immediately to bring in the full breadth of compassionate circumstances, however ridiculous, because, if this clause were accepted, they would know that the adjudicators would have to consider those circumstances.

Mr. Winnick: As perhaps the only Member in the House, or one of only a very few Members, who at one stage appeared before adjudicators regularly on almost a daily basis on behalf of clients, I found that adjudicators very rarely took the view that they should take into consideration other matters. Therefore, if the Minister has a fear that the adjudicators—who are now appointed, as I understand it, by the Lord Chancellor, but used to be appointed by the Home Office—would go out of their way to allow appeals on compassionate grounds unless the circumstances were very compelling, I can assure him from my experience of adjudicators that he has very little justification for his fear.

Mr. Renton: But it would be permissible under this new clause for appellants to bring forward any type of compassionate circumstances even if the case was outside the rules. That would have to lead to far greater delays in appeals and to much lengthier appeals, which is precisely what all hon. Members wish to avoid.
It would also mean—and the hon. Member, with his expertise, will take this on board — that there would never be mandatory immigration rules, because however the rules were worded the exercise of discretion outside the rules would always be a significant arguable factor which the appellate authorities would be required to take into account. That puts into more elegant language the point that I have made to the hon. Member. There would obviously then be scope for abuse of the appeal system by those who see it solely as a means of prolonging their stay in the United Kingdom.
It would, for example, extend the rights in visitor appeals from a hearing on the facts of the case considered against the applicable immigration rule to a hearing of all the circumstances, exceptional or otherwise, which might have a bearing or an influence on the possible exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion outside the rules. It would thus leave the final decision on the exercise of discretion outside the rules not with the Secretary of State but with the appellate authorities. That is at the heart of my opposition to this new clause.
The new clause, in extending the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities, would also place upon them a far greater burden, increasing both the cost of the appeal system and delays in all types of cases being heard. It would also place them in an anomalous position whereby, under section 19(1) and (2) as amended by this new clause, they would be required to dismiss an appeal because the decision was in accordance with the law or the immigration rules applicable, or allow an appeal because in the adjudicator's opinion the Secretary of State's discretion outside the rules would have been exercised differently. This would be an unacceptable state of affairs and could be attractive only to those who seek to undermine at any cost the Government's commitment to fair but firm immigration control.
For all these reasons, I cannot possibly recommend the new clause to the House. I feel that it would undermine the effectiveness of immigration control as a whole, and 1 invite the House to reject it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 272.

Division No. 181]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Allen, Graham
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Ashdown, Paddy
Cox, Tom


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Crowther, Stan


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Battle, John
Cunningham, Dr John


Beckett, Margaret
Darling, Alistair


Beith, A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Doran, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Blair, Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, David
Eadie, Alexander


Boyes, Roland
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Keith
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fearn, Ronald


Buckley, George J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fraser, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fyfe, Maria


Clay, Bob
Galbraith, Sam


Clelland, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Garrett, Ted (Wailsend)





George, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morley, Elliott


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Graham, Thomas
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Nellist, Dave


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grocott, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pendry, Tom


Heffer, Eric S.
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Holland, Stuart
Radice, Giles


Home Robertson, John
Randall, Stuart


Hood, Jimmy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howells, Geraint
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rogers, Allan


Hume, John
Rooker, Jeff


Ingram, Adam
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Janner, Greville
Rowlands, Ted


John, Brynmor
Ruddock, Joan


Johnston, Sir Russell
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lambie, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lamond, James
Short, Clare


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Lsl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Soley, Clive


Livingstone, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Livsey, Richard
Steinberg, Gerry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger


McAllion, John
Strang, Gavin


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McFall, John
Turner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Vaz, Keith


McKelvey, William
Wall, Pat


McLeish, Henry
Walley, Joan


McTaggart, Bob
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McWilliam, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Madden, Max
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marek, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Meale, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Michael, Alun
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Frank Cook and


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Allen Adams.


Moonie, Dr Lewis



NOES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Aspinwall, Jack


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amos, Alan
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)






Batiste, Spencer
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bendall, Vivian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hanley, Jeremy


Benyon,W.
Hannam, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Haselhurst, Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Hayes, Jerry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayward, Robert


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heddle, John


Bowis, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hill, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hind, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brazier, Julian
Holt, Richard


Bright, Graham
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howard, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Buck, Sir Antony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Burns, Simon
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Butcher, John
Hunter, Andrew


Butler, Chris
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Butterfill, John
Irvine, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Irving, Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Cash, William
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David


Dover, Den
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Bob
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Lee, John (Pendle)


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, David


Gregory, Conal
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Miller, Hal


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)





Moate, Roger
Speller, Tony


Monro, Sir Hector
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moss, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony


Mudd, David
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stokes, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Summerson, Hugo


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patnick, Irvine
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thorne, Neil


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Renton, Tim
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rhodes James, Robert
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walden, George


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Ward, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Watts, John


Rost, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew
Wheeler, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Woodcock, Mike


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Richard Ryder and


Speed, Keith
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

REFUGEES' RIGHTS OF APPEAL

`At the end of section 13(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) The limitation in subsection (3) above on the exercise of the right of appeal against refusal of entry shall not apply in any case in which a person is to be removed to a country where he claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group of political opinion.".'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause aims to deal explicitly and specifically with the need to establish an appeals procedure which will protect entrants to Britain who claim political asylum. The removal and reduction of rights of appeal in other circumstances were debated a moment ago, and no doubt my hon. Friends will wish to turn again to the general


subject of appeal when we come, as I hope we shortly will, to Third Reading. They will want to debate appeal procedures as restricted by clauses 4 and 5.
The new clause deals with a point which is narrow, but nevertheless crucial in terms of the operation of immigration control. It seeks to meet an obvious need—the protection of asylum seekers from arbitrary removal to the country in which they fear persecution.
At present, the right of asylum seekers is exercisable only after removal. For some refugees — for example, Tamils returned to parts of Sir Lanka or opponents of the Khomeini regime returned to Iran — an appeal after return is obviously too late. Indeed, it is only necessary to describe the proposal of the immigration officer to see that the procedure is clearly absurd. The officer would say, "You claim to be an opponent of the regime. You claim to be in danger of your life. You have supplied insufficient evidence to convince me of that contention. Therefore, return to the country in which you say that your life is in danger and appeal from there."
The defence of the Home Office against the absurdity of the present situation falls under two headings. First, it states that there will be a referral procedure under which some asylum seekers will be examined by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Secondly, it states that a full and automatic appeal system—appeal by right while in the United Kingdom—would produce a flood of applications, and, by implication, the Home Office means a flood of bogus applications.
If the Minister of State is to reply to the debate, he might do so with more capacity if he listened to the proposal. On 11 February, the Home Secretary said that there might be as many as 800,000 appeals—as many as there are currently in the appeals procedure of West Germany—if an automatic system were introduced. The fear of flooding which, in all circumstances, is an unhappy expression, is clearly nonsense.
Before the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 came into operation, the total number of applications for asylum in Great Britain was about 4,000. Clearly, carriers' liability will considerably reduce that number. As a continuation of our long and honourable tradition of helping refugees and supporting applicants for asylum, the burdens on the system, which our proposed appeal procedure would certainly create, could easily be borne by the Government and the Home Office.
The referral procedure is clearly inadequate. At best, it provides access to legal representation and advice about how to proceed with the appeal. More important, it is available only to those appellants who obtain permission from the Home Office to go through that process. The objective of an appeals system is that it should be independent, not least to avoid the political bias which, in part, is bound to creep into the application of asylum laws.
The new clause would allow the setting up of a procedure which was independent and quick. Under our proposal, a tribunal would be able, almost immediately, to uphold a Home Office decision, in which case the man or woman would be returned to the place from which he or she had come; or to overturn that decision, in which case he or she would be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. If the claim was complicated and uncertain, the Home Office could call for a more detailed examination of the full merits of the case and of the justification for a fuller appeal.
The provision of such a system would be wholly in line with the traditional attitude taken by this country towards those who have applied to come here because they are being persecuted and their lives are put in danger by the regimes under which they suffer. Such a system would avoid the many bad decisions in respect of asylum which have occurred in the recent past. It would enhance Britain's reputation in the world. I hope that the Minister of State will tell me that, as it is such a modest proposal, the Government are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Under present legislation, anyone who arrives in the United Kingdom without a valid visa can be refused leave to enter, without access to the immigration appeals authority. A right of appeal is exercisable only after removal.
There is widespread concern that that situation violates basic natural justice. All the organisations concerned with the protection of refugees are calling for a right of appeal to be exercisable before removal. As the Minister is well aware, that is the basic policy of both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and of the British Refugee Council and its member agencies.
I support the new clause. A review board would provide a quick and independent review of decisions to refuse asylum. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the West German situation is quite exceptional, partly because the reference in the Grundgesetz, or basic law of West Germany, to appeal rights is itself exceptional, and partly because of the division of Germany into the Federal Republic and the Democratic Republic.
7 pm
A review board and review procedure could help, especially in the kind of cases on which I have recently made representations and of which I know the Minister is aware. The danger is that, without such a procedure, representations by Members of Parliament may not succeed in securing natural justice for asylum seekers in this country.
The Minister of State is well aware that a few weeks ago I made representations on behalf of two Iraqi Kurds, that I did so on a Saturday afternoon and that I gained an assurance that my representations would be accepted. In this very tragic case, early on the Monday morning the couple concerned were removed from this country back to Yugoslavia, which had been the intermediate point of transfer for them on their way to this country.
The position was unsatisfactory on the following grounds. A Minister of State in the Department works with officials who cannot necessarily be fully apprised of the details of cases in claims of political asylum in the very short time in which those claims are frequently rejected. It stretches the credibility of the use of the Minister's name in such a case that, when he was not in London, officials should choose to say that he had been able personally to approve the removal of these two persons. I do not want to make political capital out of that; I want simply to say that there are administrative problems. There would be problems for Ministers from parties on either side of the House if this were the basis on which decisions are taken to remove.
In the specific case of removal to which I have referred, because of the lack of a relevant alternative body or a review board to which such matters could be referred, the couple went back to Yugoslavia, where the wife slit her


wrists. The United Nations was involved. I made representations to the Yugoslav authorities by telephone, asking that the couple should not be automatically referred back to Iran. The United Nations intervened and declared the couple to have the status of mandate refugees. The mandatory status should be such that the Minister should be able to accept the couple back into the United Kingdom.
It is an on going matter on which I have made yet another representation to the Minister. I trust that he will be able to consider it sympathetically because, without elaborating on that case, yet another case has occurred of Iraqi Kurds. The woman in a different couple has also cut her wrists from fear of being returned and tragically, as I am sure both sides of the House will appreciate, has tried to smother her child. These are cases in which a procedure of individual representations by Members of Parliament is not adequate in addressing the issues.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is setting out details of tragic cases. I hope that the question which I ask him will in no way reduce my horror because of the words that he has uttered. Is it not the case that a refugee should claim refuge in the first country to which he travels after leaving the country where he feels frightened?

Mr. Holland: There is an inadequacy in the present rules and legislation. The fact that in this case the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gave mandate status to these refugees shows that in his view there were exceptional circumstances which should have resulted in the refugees being able to stay in this country.

Mr. Renton: I know well the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. Doubtless we will be in further communication about it, either by correspondence or by a meeting. If the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gave these people mandate status, surely that meant specifically that Yugoslavia, which was the safe third country for them—as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has just said—as a signatory to the United Nations convention, was bound to give them, as mandate refugees, full consideration of their refugee claim.

Mr. Holland: Although the Yugoslav Government have recently deported several Iraqi Kurds, they have not deported this couple, precisely because of the mandate status. I will move off this case shortly, but surely the most appropriate country for this couple is the United Kingdom, not Yugoslavia.
I should like to refer to the general principle of the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend, and deal with refugees are escaping from a country. We have been talking about Iraqi Kurds so I shall use them as an example. Iraqi Kurds tend to come out via Turkey or through Iran. A refugee may have great difficulty getting travel documents; he may not have valid documents and he may be at risk of his life, as is the case with many Iraqi Kurds.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), such a person does not hang around at the airport to get the optimum flight which would take him to the country of his primary choice, despite the fact that he may speak only, for example,

English or French. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that many fewer people in the Middle East speak Serbo-Croat than English. That does not mean that this country has an obligation to accept anyone claiming political refugee status, but it should be possible to have a review procedure which does not depend upon a Member of Parliament responding to a telephone call from an airport at a time —at the weekend as in this case—when officials are not in the Minister's private office.
Cases slip through the cracks and procedures do not always work perfectly. Indeed, in far too many cases, the procedures work very imperfectly. If the new clause were accepted, immigration officers would recognise that in such a new review procedure they had a safety mechanism to which they could refer cases in which there was serious, but not in their view definitive, merit.
I have an anticipation, which I trust is unfounded, that the Minister may not accept the new clause. If that is to prove the case, I hope that nonetheless he will consider seriously this procedure and the terms in which it has been put forward.

Mr. Winnick: I should like to praise the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) in his constituency cases. I have read about some of those cases and I am sure that all hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, have the utmost admiration for the manner in which he has pursued them. It does him credit.
In the new clause, we are dealing with the most sensitive cases. It is difficult to imagine more sensitive cases than those which come before the immigration authorities. This country has a long and honourable tradition, which goes back centuries, as a place of asylum. It would be a bad day for us if that ever ended. We know that in the past many people who have had difficulties under their own regimes have settled here. I hope that the fact that Marx was among them will not be a reason for the Government not to look favourably on the new clause.
Unfortunately, there remain in the latter part of the 20th century far too many tyrannical regimes. The reputation of this country is at stake, as well as the very lives of some people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall pointed out. What is vitally important is that no one should be sent back to a country where that person could face persecution or worse on grounds of race, nationality or, in some cases, of politics.
I may be anticipating wrongly what the Minister will say in reply, but I imagine he will tell us that negotiations are taking place between the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and the Home Office on an agreed procedure. I am aware of those negotiations, as chairman of UKIAS, and I know that considerable progress is being made.
There is a feeling, certainly among organisations dealing with refugees, including the refugee unit of UKIAS, that the agreed procedure being negotiated between the Home Office and UKIAS is not a substitute for an independent review system. That is essential. If the Minister rejects the new clause, as I suspect he will, in my view — I am speaking personally on this matter—it is better to have procedure whereby passengers can be referred to the refugee unit of UKIAS than to have no system at all. I consider that the type of procedure being discussed by the Home Office and UKIAS is not as good as an independent review body.
Again, the Minister is likely to say that, if the new clause were accepted — I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) raised this point, although I was not in the Chamber then — we would be flooded out with many thousands of cases. I do not believe that that would be the position. Indeed, before the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 was introduced, fewer than 4,000 applications for asylum were made on average in the United Kingdom each year. That does not suggest that immigration authorities or a review body would be flooded out with cases on a daily or weekly basis.
The other point I wish to make absolutely clear concerns the new clause not being accepted. I hope that it will be accepted, but I am not one of nature's optimists. I see that the Minister is smiling, but I know very well what he will say to the House.

Mr. Vaz: I cannot believe that.

Mr. Winnick: That is an understandable view, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has not been in the House as long as I have. He has a more optimistic nature than me, but I have known Tories well for so many years that I have become very pessimistic. I am afraid to say that my hon. Friend, in the many years that he will no doubt represent Leicester, East, will probably come to the same view. But, with any luck, we will be in government and the Minister will be in the Conservative Opposition.
In any event, the point that I particularly want to make concerns the new clause not being agreed to. In that event, we hope that a procedure can be agreed between the Home Office and UKIAS, giving an assurance that the right of hon. Members to make representations should not be taken away. I hope that we shall not reach a position where the Minister will say that passengers have been referred to UKIAS and the Home Office has dealt with the recommendations, and therefore there is no reason for Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall to make representations.
It is my long-held view that if we are to make representations, which we do almost daily, on both sides of the House, on behalf of our constituents, about housing, social security and other matters, where passengers or their close relatives are making representations to us, those should be dealt with in the same way. We have a right as Members of Parliament to make those representations, and no Government should try to take that away from us.
I hope that the Minister will bear those points very much in mind. What is at stake here, certainly with regard to representations by Members of Parliament, are the very privileges and rights of Members of Parliament. I think that the Minister will find, like some of his predecessors who tried it, not very successfully, that we shall resist all such attempts, as we have done in the past. We have a right to make representations, and we shall continue to make them where we consider it is appropriate.

Mr. Renton: I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for the quiet and considerate way in which they supported the new clause. I am sorry that they

have all anticipated my speech. I might just say "No" and then sit down. I would have immediate support from the Government Whip.
Nevertheless, I should like to go into these matters a little further. I understand the reasons that led Opposition Members to table the new clause. I understand, too, and share their concern about the cases of those who come here claiming that they are refugees and have a well-founded fear of persecution, in United Nations convention terms, in the country from which they have come, and who are seeking asylum. Those cases must always worry very deeply all of us who become concerned with them. If we accepted the new clause, I should be the person whose work load and burden of anxiety would be most relieved. Clearly the new clause would remove a very great load from the shoulders of the Minister with responsibility for immigration, and would in essence pass the responsibility to an in-country appeal system.
I know, without seeking tears of sympathy from anyone, that in the eight months since I took over responsibility for refugees at the Home Office, one of my major worries has been those very long and complicated files about refugee claims, which come to me virtually every night of the week and every weekend. Clearly, if there were an in-country appeal system, it would relieve much of that burden because we would be putting in an umpire, or arbitrator, to take it over. I had to disagree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, however, when he said that he regarded the new clause as a modest proposal. I fear that it is not modest, for reasons that I shall explain shortly.
Before I deal with that, I shall deal briefly with the case of the Iraqi Kurds that the hon. Member for Vauxhall has raised with me. It has been the subject of much agonising correspondence between us, and 1 use that word on purpose. It is true, as I said when I intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, that Yugoslavia is a signatory to the United Nations convention. It falls to that country, therefore, to consider their asylum claim under the convention of 1951. There is no reason why those people should be sent to another signatory country, such as the United Kingdom, to make their claim.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall made a very interesting comment, when he added that he thought the United Kingdom was the most appropriate country in which those people's refugee claim should be considered. The hon. Gentleman has much experience in these matters. and he will recognise that if we accepted that principle it would go to the heart of, and destroy, the principles that lie behind the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees. It is an intrinsic part of the convention that the first safe third country to which a refugee goes after leaving his own country is the one that will consider the refugee claim.
Clearly, that goes back in history to the time when the refugee convention was written, and it was essentially dealing with people moving across land frontiers, for example from parts of eastern Europe into Turkey or Germany, or later from Vietnam into Cambodia. Such refugees were moving across land frontiers to get away from an enemy of whom they were fearful and it was thought that the first safe country to which they came should therefore be the one that considered their refugee claim.
The convention including all that detail was written and designed long before the days of 747s and mass travel,


which, sad to say—although we have to accept the fact — enable people to be moved about the world by ruthless "travel agents", who take their life savings, give them false passports or visas, and say that they will get them into, say, the United Kingdom or Canada. "There," they say, "you must claim refugee status. Your claim will be considered, and it will take so long to be resolved that in the end you will be able to stay there."
The hon. Member for Vauxhall must think through that point. If we accepted that those who claim refugee status should end up in the most appropriate country for them, it could only add stimulus to what is already a worrying movement—aided by the ruthless travel agents whom I have described. There would be an increased tendency to move around the world people who, for wholly understandable reasons, seek to improve their economic conditions elsewhere, and who are advised that the best way to do that is to claim on arrival that they wish to seek asylum because they are afraid to go back.

Mr. Holland: Clearly, times have changed. The cross-border movements between east and west Europe as well as those from Eastern Europe, to, say, Turkey, have been superseded by jet air travel.
Taking that into account, surely the Minister will recognise that there are appropriate differences which should be taken into account in determining whether someone should stay in one country rather than another —for example, whether that person has relatives here, as well as whether he speaks the language. It may well be the case that we should be looking at the United Nations code, while preserving the crucial principle that, to prevent refugees from being bundled back into the country from which they came, the first country should be the prior country.

Mr. Renton: When we consider a refugee claim to this country and there is no safe third country, we always take into consideration whether the person has relatives here, particularly if we give exceptional leave to remain.
I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's wish for a reexamination of the United Nations convention. I do not feel that it is working very well at present. One of the problems is that other countries are not as honourable as we are — I name no names — in living up to their obligations, although they are signatories to the convention.
One of our difficulties is that, because Heathrow is such a major airport and aeroplanes call there in transit throughout the world, it is easy for an immigration service in another country to plant refugees that it does not wish to look after on an aeroplane that will land in transit at Heathrow. While the passengers may be ticketed through from Heathrow, there will be no firm booking. Those are the people who leave the aeroplane at Heathrow and whom we find wandering around terminal 2 or 3. Their passports and air tickets have been destroyed, and it falls to us to consider their refugee claims — although it is clear that they have been in a safe third country on the way.
I fear that, if we open up the UN convention, given the pressures on economic migration throughout the world, it will be extraordinarily difficult to reach a definition of a refugee that is even as satisfactory as the present

definition. If the hon. Member for Vauxhall can prove me wrong, I shall be delighted to listen, because I share his view that there are problems in the present convention.
Before I move on to the argument of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, let me say to the hon. Member for Walsall, North that I recognise his position as chairman of UKIAS, and I agree that Britain has a long and honourable reputation for looking after refugees. Where we may differ, however, is in my belief that we have nothing to be ashamed of in our present treatment of those seeking refugee status in this country.
It is not only that, over the past eight years, we have given refugee status to some 8,000 people, and have taken 20,000 Vietnamese. We have also given 7,000 exceptional leave to remain. It is a great pity that such organisations as Amnesty International, for which I have a great respect, occasionally put out circulars that give the impression that we are not living up to our obligations. I wholly reject that.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook described the new clause as a modest proposal. I do not agree, for the reasons that he himself predicted. It is not, of course, a new proposal; the Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration made such a recommendation in 1985, and the issue has been taken up since by the British Refugee Council and by Amnesty. Each time that it has been raised, we have considered it very carefully.
The basic argument is, as I have said, persuasive. But, as SCORRI recognised—and as the experience of other Western European countries amply demonstrates—the proposed solution carries the potential for considerable abuse. At present, a person who arrives at a United Kingdom port seeking entry and is refused has no in-country right of appeal, unless he has an entry clearance or work permit. In that respect, asylum seekers are in the same position as anyone else who seeks to enter the country. If, however, we were to introduce an in-country right of appeal for asylum seekers, it takes little imagination to guess what would happen.
Some 23,000 people were refused leave to enter the United Kingdom in 1986, the last full year for which statistics are available. If all that they had to do to delay their removal was claim asylum, there is little doubt that many — indeed, probably most — would do so. They would simply say the magic words, "I fear persecution in the country whence I have come" — whether that country was Iran, Iraq or the United States. They would then be within our appeal system immediately, with all that that involves—including lengthy consideration and, it must be said, excessive delays. That certainly seems to be the experience of other European countries.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the West German experience, which is certainly the most dramatic. It may not be entirely typical, as the right hon. Gentleman said, because of the Berlin gap which has now been closed. It is a fact, however, that West Germany has some 800,000 outstanding applications for asylum, of which, from experience, only 8 per cent. of which are likely to prove well-founded. Because of the delays involved, the majority — perhaps as many as 90 per cent. — will ultimately be allowed to remain in West Germany. But it is taking years for their cases to be considered.
I know that full well, because a constituent came to see me about her brother, who was in one of the camps in West Germany and was seeking refugee status in that country. He had already been there for three or four years, and had no prospect of even getting out of the camp or of


learning German. My constituent's purpose in coming to see me was simply to ask whether there was any chance of his being able to come to the United Kingdom, because his future in the refugee camp was so bleak and it would take so many years for his claim to be considered.

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister's logic puzzles me. He tells us that Germany is always untypical, and agrees with my contention that there is no comparison. He then goes on to say that our proposals cannot be implemented by comparing what may happen here with what is happening in Germany. That does not make sense to me.

Mr. Renton: Very well. I will read the statistics for other continental countries.
The same enormous increase has occurred in virtually every other west European country. The total number of asylum seekers in west European countries, including Austria, went up from 92,000 in 1984 to 184,000 in 1986. Denmark is in many ways a much more interesting example than West Germany, because it has no Berlin gap. Denmark introduced an in-country appeal system no different from that pressed on us by Opposition Members. Within a month, 3,000 people applied for asylum there. As a result, Denmark did what a number of other countries are now beginning to do, and introduced a system much closer to ours—in which, I understand, there is no in-country appeal system.

Mr. Madden: I can understand why the Minister of State is taking so long defending the status quo when I gather that the Home Office is shortly to announce a new referral system for refugees, whereby UKIAS will be the referral agency. I understand that the Minister is quoted extensively in New Society this week as saying that the arrangements have been agreed and that UKIAS will receive additional funding to enable it to carry out that referral work. May we have some information about those arrangements, rather than the tedious defence of that existing situation?

Mr. Renton: I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman found my defence of the present position extremely conclusive. Whatever the superficial and emotional attractions of the in-country appeal system, we do not want to fall into the same trap and the same pitfalls as some of our western European neighbours, from which they are now having to resile, with all the unhappiness and the inconvenience, not least to the asylum applicants in their own countries, that has occurred from going down the wrong route.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) made a point about IKIAS and I shall come to that in my closing remarks. Unfortunately, I am not like the hon. Gentleman and do not receive my copy of New Society three days early. I do not get it until the weekend, so I have not yet had the benefit of reading what will be written on Wednesday or Thursday of this week.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook argued that the scope of his new clause would be limited to those travelling directly from the country in which they fear persecution. I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that it would not be possible for a person to use the safe third country and claim that he feared persecution in that country. That is certainly in the new clause as drafted. Surely that is incorrect, because all that a person would have to do to

achieve an in-country right of appeal would be to claim to fear persecution not only in his country of origin, but in whichever country he has travelled from.
Thus, an Afghani, travelling to the United Kingdom via Pakistan, would claim to fear persecution in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and would then have an automatic right to remain in the United Kingdom while his appeal against refusal was heard. Even in cases that are clearly absurd and even abusive — where, for example, the third country was the Netherlands or Sweden—there would be no denying an in-country right of appeal.
Therefore, I am afraid that the new clause would, as I have said, substantially increase the number of applications made at ports in the United Kingdom. It would thus introduce lengthy delays in the determination of such applications and that, frankly, would be to the disadvantage of genuine refugee applicants coming here. I hope that the Opposition Members who have tabled the new clause will, on second thoughts, see its great intrinsic disadvantages.
I return to the point raised by the hon. Members for Walsall, North and for Bradford, West. I accept that some form of independent input in the refugee determination procedure is desirable. That is why I and my officials have been discussing revised referral arrangements with UK LAS and UNHCR, whereby the majority of cases arriving at ports will be referred to UKIAS, which will be able to consider the cases and offer observations on them. They will then be carefully considered and if there is any difference of view between UKIAS and officials in the refugee unit, I shall look into the case personally.
Although that does not go as far as a full appeals procedure, I hope that hon. Members will agree that it will be a useful safeguard. We are not there yet and, contrary to anything that New Society may say, the hon. Member for Walsall, North knows that we have not yet reached full agreement with UKIAS on all the details. 1 understand that a further meeting is planned shortly and, for the reasons that I have stated, I hope that we will reach agreement soon.

Mr. Winnick: I do not want to comment on the negotiations as that would certainly not be in order. However, I should like the Minister to confirm a point that I was making a few moments ago. Does he accept that any agreement reached between UKIAS and the Home Office must not and cannot take away the right of hon. Members to make representations when they consider that that is appropriate?

Mr. Renton: On Third Reading, I propose to make a few comments about hon. Members' representations, on which Opposition Members have aired their views. I should like to leave the hon. Gentleman's comments until that debate.
Although as I said, the UKIAS procedure is not yet finalised, I hope that that will be so in a matter of a few weeks.
I appreciate that the treatment of refugees is an emotional matter. It is important that all refugees—that is, all those who come here claiming asylum — should have their cases deeply considered, but, for the reasons that I have stated, I do not believe that Opposition Members have thought through the consequences of their new clause. I hope that on consideration they will riot seek to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 263.

Division no.182]
[7.35pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fraser, John


Allen, Graham
Galbraith, Sam


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Armstrong, Hilary
George, Bruce


Ashdown, Paddy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashton, Joe
Gordon, Mildred


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Graham, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Battle, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beith, A. J.
Grocott, Bruce


Bell, Stuart
Harman, Ms Harriet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bermingham, Gerald
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Henderson, Doug


Blair, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Blunkett, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Holland, Stuart


Bradley, Keith
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hood, Jimmy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
John, Brynmor


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lambie, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lamond, James


Clay, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Clelland, David
Leighton, Ron


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Coleman, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cox, Tom
McCartney, Ian


Crowther, Stan
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cryer, Bob
McFall, John


Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Cunningham, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Bob


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Doran, Frank
Madden, Max


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marek, Dr John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eadie, Alexander
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eastham, Ken
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meacher, Michael


Fatchett, Derek
Meale, Alan


Fearn, Ronald
Michael, Alun


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fisher, Mark
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek
Morley, Elliott


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)





Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Nellist, Dave
Soley, Clive


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Parry, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Patchett, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Vaz, Keith


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wall, Pat


Radice, Giles
Walley, Joan


Randall, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wareing, Robert N.


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Salmond, Alex
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Allen Adams.


Short, Clare



NOES


Adley, Robert
Butcher, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Atkinson, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Devlin, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Durant, Tony


Benyon, W.
Dykes, Hugh


Bevan, David Gilroy
Emery, Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Body, Sir Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Franks, Cecil


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gow, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gower, Sir Raymond


Buck, Sir Antony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal






Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Miller, Hal


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Mudd, David


Hannam, John
Neale, Gerrard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Heddle, John
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raffan, Keith


Holt, Richard
Redwood, John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Renton, Tim


Howard, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunter, Andrew
Rost, Peter


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew


Irvine, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Irving, Charles
Ryder, Richard


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jackson, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Janman, Tim
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kilfedder, James
Shersby, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Speed, Keith


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Speller, Tony


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Knowles, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knox, David
Steen, Anthony


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stern, Michael


Lang, Ian
Stevens, Lewis


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stokes, John


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sumberg, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Summerson, Hugo


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maclean, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Tracey, Richard


Major, Rt Hon John
Trippier, David


Malins, Humfrey
Trotter, Neville


Mans, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marland, Paul
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Maude, Hon Francis
Walden, George


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waller, Gary


Mellor, David
Ward, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Warren, Kenneth





Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, John
Woodcock, Mike


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wiggin, Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. David Lightbown.


Winterton, Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

SCHEDULE

MINOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 7, line 2, leave out from 'words' to end of line 6 and insert
'"and the immigration officer does not at the same time give him indefinite or limited leave to enter, he shall be deemed to have been given leave to enter for a period of six months subject to a condition prohibiting his taking employment and the immigration officer shall as soon as may be give him written notice of that leave."'.—[Mr. Renton.]

Mr. Randall: Opposition Members fully support the amendment because, essentially, it is the amendment that we tabled in Committee. We claim full credit for it and expect all hon. Members to support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has now been considered fully in the House. In Committee alone, some 62 hours were spent examining its provisions in detail. That reflects the importance that the House rightly attaches to immigration matters. It also reflects the loquacity of the Opposition. On one occasion, they spent two hours complaining that the telephone number at the Home Office had been changed. That showed their determination to waste the Committee's valuable time rather than get down to the important matters of immigration policy that concern us all.
On the whole, the Committee was very amicable in its approach to the problems. I am pleased that — as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said — we were able to accept on the last morning an Opposition amendment to substitute the word "six" for the word "three". It was an important amendment, and I am pleased that, in the typically moderate manner that characterised Conservative Members' conduct throughout the proceedings in Committee, we were able to agree with the Opposition on this matter.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have said, the Bill does not make major alterations to the structure of immigration control. The Immigration Act 1971 will continue to provide the overall framework within which immigration control will operate, but the Bill does make important changes, and it is therefore right that it should have been subjected to close scrutiny.
The Bill has stood up to that scrutiny very well. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by rehearsing in detail its contents and the effect of its provisions. Hon. Members who served for 62 hours on the Committee will be well aware of its detail. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) nodding in approval.
I shall mention briefly the parts of the Bill that will have perhaps the greatest impact in improving the fair and efficient working of immigration control. Clause 1, which repeals section 1(5) of the 1971 Act, will make control fairer by removing the discriminatory advantage that the 1971 Act confers on just one group of people —Commonwealth male citizens who were settled here before 1 January 1973.
Clause 3, by making universal the wholly sensible requirement that people claiming the right of abode in this country should establish that right from abroad before travelling here, will close an avenue of possible abuse and will therefore be fairer to all those who wish to come here.
Clause 4 will enable action to be taken more effectively against overstayers and those who breach the conditions of their leave. In effect, clause 5 will ensure that prosecution action can be taken against those who knowingly remain in this country after their leave has expired. As the Committee found, those are wholly reasonable provisions. They protect the interests of those who are already lawfully settled here, while being fair to those who wish to come here from overseas. Their intentions and effects have been examined thoroughly in the House, and they now go forward for further scrutiny in another place.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I understand that earlier the Minister referred to the mountain of almost 250,000 applications for registration under the various nationality proposals and that he made an announcement about the redeployment of staff to deal with that. In the past hour, I have received a written reply from the Minister, in which he refuses to give the grounds that will be considered acceptable to justify a late application for registration as a British citizen made by Commonwealth and Irish citizens resident in the United Kingdom since 1 January 1973.
The Minister says that the circumstances of each case will be considered. Will he explain what those circumstances are, so that Members of Parliament and bodies such as the Coventry community relations council can advise people whether a late application is likely to be heard by his Department? The answer that I have received today, like those that other hon. Members have received in recent weeks, leave us in the dark.

Mr. Renton: I cannot take that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. He did not serve on the Committee and he was not present during the debate. To go on Third Reading into the detailed circumstances in which every application for variation of leave will be considered at Lunar house would be a terrible waste of time. I have given the hon. Gentleman a written answer to his point about the circumstances in which late applications will be considered. If the hon. Gentleman has not been sent a copy of it, I shall ensure that he is sent one.

Mr. Nellist: I have it here.

Mr. Renton: That gives the hon. Gentleman the answer that he requires. I shall mention briefly two subjects and then broaden my remarks before concluding. Although, strictly speaking, they are not relevant to the Bill, I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me to do so, because they have been the subject of comment by, and interest among, hon. Members in recent months.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must remind the Minister that Third Reading is very narrow. What he has to say must be confined to the Bill.

Mr. Renton: I shall try you out, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hope that you will forgive me. If you do not, I shall move on immediately.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not forgive easily.

Mr. Renton: The two issues are Members' representations in immigration cases and DNA testing. As hon. Members will know, these matters were discussed at length in Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, it is part of the debate on the Bill.

Mr. Renton: You are generous, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that your decision will be welcomed by hon. Members.
The House will recall that we are reviewing the system by which hon. Members can make representations. I mentioned this earlier in answer to a query from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The review is not yet complete, and I do not wish to anticipate what we shall put forward by way of detailed proposals. However, I should stress that we shall not take any action without full consultation. It will be some little time before the review is completed, but we shall bring our proposals before the House at the earliest possible date, and I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already confirmed that there will be an opportunity for a debate.

Mr. Winnick: With regard to hon. Members' representations, is the Minister saying that that review could lead to the rights of hon. Members to make representations being undermined?

Mr. Renton: No. The hon. Gentleman cannot lead me down that path. I said clearly that I did not want to anticipate what we would put forward by way of detailed proposals. It would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to ask me to do so by giving hypothetical answers in response to one particular category of proposals or another. The hon. Gentleman will have to be patient.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the report of the DNA pilot trial that we have been running has been drafted. I do not want to say anything yet about its conclusions, because we are consulting the scientists who have been concerned with the trials to ensure that the report—this will be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz)—is accurate and complete. The report will be published as soon as possible after those consultations.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm a recent parliamentary answer from the Attorney-General, in which he made it clear that legal aid is available to cover the costs of DNA applications where the issue of a relationship is central to the application, and that guidance has been issued to local legal aid committees in the hope that they will adopt a consistent approach in this matter?

Mr. Renton: It is not for me to confirm an answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I have seen that answer, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to query any detail of it, doubtless he will do so by writing to my right hon. and learned Friend.
The Labour party has consistently tried to make a major issue out of the Bill.

Mr. Vaz: It is a major issue.

Mr. Renton: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It started with the excessive denunciations of the Bill by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on Second Reading, and it continued for 62 hours in Committee. We heard the cries of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, who is always seeking publicity and headlines in the Asian Times, that the prime purpose of the Bill—I remember the headline well—was "to divide families". To that was added the implication of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that we were completely removing the right in all appeals to argue on compassionate grounds. Much though I enjoyed listening to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, he often showed an astounding lack of comprehension of the Bill. Labour's determination to make a major issue out of this surprised me.
When most people see a bonfire smouldering in a potentially dangerous spot, they tend to run to it with a bucket of water, but on immigration issues Labour Members approach the bonfire with a large can of paraffin. Unfortunately, on their way, they usually trip on some great rock of misunderstanding or lack of comprehension and spill the paraffin on the ground. That is just as well, because if they reached the bonfire with their load of fuel they could and would cause a lot of damage.
Labour's whole approach has been foolish and wrong. It has been foolish, because no one should approach race relations other than with great care, having first thought the matter through very carefully—

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman should know.

Mr. Renton: I do know. That is why I say that no one should approach the subject without thinking carefully what is the wise minimum that can be said that will enhance the stability of our mixed community.
Race relations are calm in Britain at the moment—thank God for that. They were not an issue at the last election, and the Government have embarked on many positive steps to improve the integration of the ethnic minority into our community, not least in the difficult inner-city areas. To mention only a few examples, we are continuing to support the work of the Commission for Racial Equality in countering unlawful discrimination with an £11 million grant in 1987–88. We are providing grants to local authorities, under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, to meet special needs. Ten thousand posts that are currently funded, mainly in education, cost the taxpayer £100 million. The police force is—I hope— becoming more responsive and representative. There are now more than 1,000 ethnic minority officers, and vigorous action has been taken to combat racial attacks, and to improve training in community and race relations. That is all as it should be, and the Home Office, in which I am a Minister, will continue to do its best to achieve greater harmony.
If people keep crying, "Racist, racist," often and long enough, someone will believe them. That works to the benefit of no sensible person, yet the speeches of the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) in Committee harked on the racist theme and, in the process, served the interests of

no one who believes in good community relations. Opposition Members lectured us in Committee, saving that only they knew the minds of the ethnic minority and that we did not — a presumptuous and self-seeking attitude. How did they use their knowledge? They sought to destroy stability, to arouse disharmony and to excite fear by attributing all sorts of changes to the Bill that it did not contain.
I am pleased to see the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) and for Leicester, East in their places tonight. I had thought that they would bring an insight to our discussions, but they did not. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington declaimed to the Committee, not from the head, but from the stomach, the seat of all passion; but passion is not the best emotion for the sensible consideration of race relations. Calm, shrewd judgment and wisdom are needed. The hon. Member for Leicester, East, a solicitor who specialises in immigration cases, might have given us—I thought—those qualities, but he did not either. From him we heard long-winded exaggeration and torrents of hyperbole that drowned us in a mixture of boredom and nausea.
The Labour party was foolish and wrong, because, as the Home Secretary has said all along, this is a modest Bill —no more and no less. It reinforces our immigration code in a few areas in which gaps have appeared since the 1971 Act. The ethnic minority in Britain—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: rose—

Mr. Renton: I am coming to the end of my remarks, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The ethnic minority in Britain have much to fear from the Labour party, with its ill-thought-out promises completely to repeal the Immigration Act 1971 and the British Nationality Act 1981. Opposition Members have never given any thought—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West is waking up. They have never given any thought to the effect that repeal of those important measures would have on race relations in Britain or on the greatly increased numbers that would then come for primary settlement in this country.

Mr. Bidwell: rose—

Mr. Renton: Despite what Opposition Members have said, the ethnic minority have nothing to fear from the Bill. Stopping abuse of our immigration system will lead to better and more harmonious community relations, because no one, whatever his background or racial origins, likes to see evaders who are illegally here getting away with their evasion. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Randall: One thing has been clear on Second Reading and in Committee: there is uncertainty about why the Government have introduced the Bill, which is restrictive. Essentially, it has to do with taking rights from people. The scope of the restrictions is considerable, and I shall briefly summarise them.
Clause 1 is about the breaking of a promise made by a Tory Government in 1971. It will have the serious effect of preventing the reunification of families. From now on,


I do not see how the Government can claim to be called the party of the family. The Government's actions in this clause can only be described as anti-family.
For example, as a result of clause 3, children will lose their chance to be present at an appeal in the United Kingdom when they wish to exercise their rights to settle here and there is dispute about their relationship with their parents. Much of the anguish experienced by some of those people could be overcome if the Government stopped dragging their feet over their decision to introduce DNA testing, which can prove family relationships and which should be free of charge, particularly for poor families.
We are emphatically opposed to clause 4 and believe that the Government should have withdrawn it. It will remove the appeal procedures that take compassionate circumstances into account when those who have overstayed are to be deported. The Labour party does not condone breaking the law, but it is vital for hon. Members to recognise that overstaying can happen for all sorts of technical and seemingly trivial reasons, sometimes outside the control of the person concerned.
For instance, a student may become an overstayer because his college registrar persistently fails to deal appropriately with certain forms and documentation to do with the student's courses, in conjunction with the Home Office. Deportation is such a serious matter that, before it happens, the merits of a case should be considered in an appeal procedure. However, the Government have decided to strip people of these fundamental appeal rights, and we deplore that.
In clause 5, the Government have decided to use the unnecessarily heavy-handed approach of the criminal law to deport overstayers, rather than the perfectly adequate and effective administrative procedures that are currently in force. Clearly, there is a serious risk that race relations —especially in our inner cities—could be impaired by the unnecessary use of the police in deportation cases. The police are already overstretched, attempting to deal with the record levels of crime that have arisen under this Government, without having also to become involved in immigration control. It is wrong and unnecessary for the Government to have recourse to the criminal law in this way.
Why have the Government introduced this unnecessary and highly restrictive Bill? They have two motives. During the general election last year, the Tory Party decided to play the race card in an attempt to save the rapidly sinking Conservative candidate for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, Mr. Piers Merchant. As we know, Mr. Merchant lost his seat and the Tory party was landed with a number of commitments, which essentially meant placing restrictions on black people and their families.
The emphasis on polygamous marriages during the election campaign—there are only about 20 cases a year —was one element of the Tory party's obscene tactics. The Government are now expected to deliver a Bill that meets the commitments made during the election campaign, but which will do nothing for race relations. Clearly, the Bill is a wasted opportunity.
The second Government motive is to reduce the administrative burden in the immigration and nationality department, at a time when the demand for its services is growing. Currently there is an administrative shambles at

Lunar house, Croydon, with roughly 200,000 unopened letters. Those received in November 1987 are only now being opened. The Minister has told us of some of his plans to deal with that absurd situation, but it is remarkable that he failed to take action before to prevent that chaos arising. He should have pre-empted the demands that arose as a result of the registration system and its deadline of 31 December 1987. That failure makes the Minister look quite inept.
The Government's obsession with cutting public expenditure means that the Home Office is attempting to tackle the chronic problems at Lunar house with what could be called "efficiency improvements". Such measures require the staff to do less work on certain types of case, and that is achieved by removing fundamental rights—for example, the appeal rights that we discussed earlier. Those rights have been taken away from immigrants or would-be immigrants. Clearly, one way of protecting those rights would be to provide more building space and staff at Lunar house, but that would cost money.
I believe that a parallel can be drawn between the National Health Service crisis and the administrative crisis that exists at Lunar house. In the NHS, services are being withdrawn from some of our hospitals because there are not enough nurses, as a result of cash shortages, to provide them. The consequence is hardship or, in some cases, death. The evidence from our hospitals unequivocally demonstrates that problem.
Cash shortages in the immigration service also mean insufficient staff and other resources to cope with the current work load. As a consequence, the Government are reducing vital services, and that in turn is causing delay, worry, stress and hardship for immigrants and their families.
It is clear that the Government's second motive is to reduce service levels to the users to save money, irrespective of the effect on families and individuals. That is a ruthless and inhumane strategy and it deserves total condemnation. That policy shows—as in the case of the NHS — that the Government have no scruples in attaching greater value to money rather than to the wellbeing of people. For that reason, the Labour party strongly condemns the Bill.
The Government's credibility on improving the cost-effectiveness of the administration of the immigration service must surely come into question when one considers the visa system that was introduced in 1986. On that occasion, the Home Secretary said:
Changes have been made … because of the pressure on Heathrow airport in particular … changes will improve conditions for all passengers arriving at our ports and for all those in this country who come to greet them.—[Official Report, 27 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 86, 91.]
It is clear that the Home Office has failed— the blame must rest with the Minister — to meet its objectives. There are still serious delays at our ports, especially for non-British and non-EEC passengers. Indeed, serious delays are still being encountered at Heathrow.
One objective of the visa system was to improve things for visitors to our country. However, it should be noted that there has been no improvement in the condition of detainees at Heathrow. People are having to sleep on benches or on the floor, without food, blankets or even drinks. Reports suggest that some immigration officers are so appalled by the treatment of detainees that they pay for


tea and sandwiches out of their own pockets. In 1987, one of the detainees who was kept in such unacceptable conditions was a pregnant woman.
That is a disgraceful way in which to treat visitors to our country. It shows that the Government's attempt to contain staff costs as a result of efficiency improvements has, at best, resulted in no improvement in service levels for visitors to this country and those people who go to Heathrow to greet them.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is always extremely critical of our decision to introduce the visa system for five countries a year ago. If he were ever in office, would he cancel that system?

Mr. Randall: I believe that the Minister has completely missed the point—

Mr. Renton: Answer the question.

Mr. Randall: I am. The fact is that the visa system had the aim of improving the services for visitors to this country with regard to delays and detention conditions. However, I have reports from the Home Office that show that those conditions have not been improved satisfactorily. We must consider the treatment of people and how their treatment reflects on the credibility of the Minister. The Minister has missed the point— I am talking about the administration of his Department.
If the introduction of the visa system is anything to go by, it is difficult to feel confident in the Minister's ability to resolve the administrative crisis in the immigration service. There is an obvious mismatch between the demands on that service and the resources needed to meet them.
About a week ago, the House debated the latest changes in the immigration rules. The main purpose of those changes was to reduce the work load at Lunar house for particular types of case work—for example, foreign nationals wishing to extend their stay in the United Kingdom. Although I said then that I accepted that some of those changes were welcome, it is a matter of considerable concern that the so-called "improvements" in cost-effectiveness could result in a deterioration of services for some visitors.
The new rules state that, on arriving in this country, all visitors will be granted the right to remain for six months. However, it is important to note that many people currently entering the country as visitors are granted a two or three-month stay because immigration officers are suspicious about their motives, but do not have the information needed to substantiate their suspicions. According to the new rules, such suspicious people will now be granted six months leave to remain in this country. However, what happens to those people in practice is unclear. The discretion available to an immigration officer to deal with such cases will be included in the manual "Instructions to Immigration Officers", which, as we know, is unpublished.
We are extremely worried that many of those so-called "suspicious" people will be refused entry altogether by immigration officers. I hope that the Minister can allay our fears. If such refusals were to take place —in our debate, the Minister said nothing to suggest that that would not happen, although I asked him to do so—it would be another example of how the Government's

efforts to contain costs will result in a deterioration in the service levels for the users, in this case visitors to this country.
That worries Opposition Members. I should be grateful if the Minister will tell the House what discretionary powers he intends to grant to immigration officers through the "Instructions to Immigration Officers" manual to refuse entry to those suspicious people, and whether he expects the number of people refused entry to increase. I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
The Government are making continuing efforts to reduce the rights of Members of Parliament in immigration cases, which the Government clearly view as extra work for the Home Office. Unquestionably, Members of Parliament play a vital role in protecting the interests of constituents and their families. I should like to make it absolutely clear that Opposition Members will strenuously oppose any further attempts by the Government to reduce the influence of Members of Parliament in immigration cases. Clearly, if the Government were to get their way, there would be a serious deterioration in the services provided to immigrants by the Home Office through Members of Parliament. I hope that the Minister will comment on the latest position with regard to the Government's discussions and considerations.
On the face of it, there would appear to be no reason for the Government to restrict the intervention of Members of Parliament in immigration cases, except for the cost of servicing the inquiries of Members of Parliament. The service is so important to our constituents and to their families, and adequate resources must be provided so that the Home Office can deal with that vital work.
In conclusion, the structure of this highly restrictive Bill has been influenced, among other things, by the totally inadequate administrative systems—not the people, but the systems—at Lunar house and in other parts of the Home Office. Those inadequacies are related to the fact that there are insufficient staff and other resources available to cope with the demand. The current situation at Lunar house proves that beyond any reasonable doubt. Clearly, the root cause is the Government's obsession with reducing the levels of public expenditure, irrespective of the effect of that policy on people and families.
However, there are other considerations. The Government showed their attitude towards black people during the general election. That attitude, which has manifested itself in the Bill, was condemned by the British Council of Churches, black Church leaders and the Quakers. When I asked the British Council of Churches for a theological statement on the immigration policy in Britain, it referred me to Leviticus 19: 34:
When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you a native among you, and you shall love him as yourself for you too were strangers, when you were in the land of Egypt.
The Bill should have emerged from such a basis. Instead, we have something different.
The British Council of Churches seems to sum up the Conservative Government's attitude to immigration in its letter to me when it referred to the Prime Minister's predilection for the good Samaritan. The letter said:
a Government supporter coming down the road from Jerusalem to Jericho would presumably have asked the beaten man if he was an overstayer seeking the right to remain in the


country on compassionate grounds. Had he answered yes, he would no doubt have been rolled off the road down into the ditch; or if he were seeking to bring his wife and children in from another country, he would have been denied all assistance because of the drain on public funds—less of a problem if he died.
That is what the British Council of Churches think, about the Bill. For those reasons, the Labour party will be voting against this dreadful Bill tonight.

Mr. Michael Jack: I shall not detain the House for long. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have already spent 62 hours considering the Bill in detail in Committee.
I start by taking great exception to the words used by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I strongly resent being tarred as a racist, which was the import of his remarks.

Mr. Randall: I never used the word "racist" in the whole of the Committee proceedings or in today's debate. I said that the Government have played the race card. All hon. Members know that the Government played the race card during the general election. One has only to look at the newspaper reports to see the way in which polygamy was pressed during the later stages of the election campaign.

Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Member for slightly clarifying the situation.

Mr. Renton: In regard to the word "polygamy", my hon. Friend will remember, as I do with pain, that Opposition Members debated polygamous marriages for six hours, but failed to vote on the relevant clause. That is a typical example of their determination to waste time.

Mr. Jack: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I shall make some remarks about polygamy in a moment. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West for at least clarifying the words that he used. Many Conservative Members would take exception to his remarks, as we have great concern about race relations and harmony between ethnic groups in Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that one letter in the general election campaign tars the entire Conservative membership with the same brush.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he conducted the Bill and I compliment him on his humour and patience. Indeed, it was with great patience that we had to listen to many of the comments from Opposition Members.
On the issue that Opposition Members put to the House, I live next to Preston, where there is an immigrant community, from which I have received no representations whatever on the matters contained in the Bill. I made inquiries because hon. Members representing constituencies which do not have large numbers of immigrants within their boundaries, have been chastised and told that we do not know or care about these issues. I made inquiries about whether it was a local issue. I was put firmly in my place by those involved in race relations in Preston, who told me that the Bill was not an issue; it had not been discussed, nor had it appeared in the local newspapers. I was available for comment and nobody came to see me.
We have heard a great deal about the operation of the visa system. I note from a letter that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Office—an interesting letter dated 11 January that was sent to a number of hon. Members. On the subject of visas and their operation, the Minister drew my attention to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants' report "Out of Sight". The letter states that that report
acknowledges the success of our aim to provide a quick service for the majority of applicants.
It goes on:
Ministerial colleagues and officials visiting the Indian Sub-Continent have heard expressions of general satisfaction with the new visa regimes and a recognition that for bona fide travellers it offers a good service and a trouble-free passage through immigration formalities on arrival.
That underwrites the effectiveness which is demonstrated by one figure for the period 1 November 1986 to 31 October 1987 when in Islamabad, 31,950 visa applications were received and 24,340 visas were issued — a considerable amount of work most effectively and efficiently done.
I comment on the Bill from the background of a constituency which does not have a large immigrant population. I make that point specifically because some Opposition Members, for good reasons, have approached this subject with something akin to tunnel vision. They have not seen the wider issues and concerns of those who live in areas without large-scale immigrant population.
Much of the Bill has to do with tolerance and good race relations. In many clauses and many ways it seeks to tighten and amend the law and certain regulations where they have been abused or found wanting. The Bill will do much to reassure people that their concerns have been properly addressed.
There is a real worry about people who come to Britain without the necessary bona fide credentials. It may surprise Opposition Members to know that, despite the Bill, some people in Britain still feel that our regulations are extremely lax. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want to contribute, I am sure that they will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Many people do not understand the enormous range of opportunities that exist for various forms of appeal and our immigration facilities. For them, somebody either has the right to come here or not. It may interest hon. Members to know that, in the course of reviewing clause 1, and some other clauses, I made some inquiries about how other countries view their visas. It may surprise Opposition Members to hear that Britain is extremely tolerant and fair and that our waiting lists are short.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If entering Britain is as easy and fair as the hon. Gentleman thinks, why did the family of a constituent of mine have to wait 12 years for entry clearance to come to this country from Bangladesh as perfectly legal immigrants and dependants of my constituent? They have suffered the most appalling indignity, family disunity and poverty as a result of the Home Office's inefficiency and incompetence and its deliberately understaffing the High Commission in Dhaka to reduce the number of people who come here.

Mr. Jack: That is an individual interpretation of the situation. Had the hon. Gentleman been present in Committee for our debate on this subject, he would have found such an accusation thoroughly repudiated, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond


and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who had visited the Indian subcontinent and had reported to us on the improved situation in the various queues that he had seen. Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
I have here the United States' official visa bulletin dated January 1988. I recommend that Opposition Members should read that document, because they will find that, in certain cases, unless application has been made before 1971, certain categories will not be able to enter the United States. That is not the case in Britain.

Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, should America relax those visa requirements, it would be as a tribute to our own strong system of immigration control?

Mr. Jack: I accept that valid point.
A similar situation also applies to appeals. I checked whether the United States, Australia and Canada had any form of compassionate appeal. When it came to technical infringements of their immigration regulations, I was staggered to find that the decision was either yes or no. In other words, a person who transgressed the regulations left, and, once having left, could not reapply to enter the United States for five years. I make these points because they put the Bill in perspective. We are not imposing such draconian measures on appeals and visas as already exist in other countries.
Polygamy is not acknowleged by the majority of people in Britain. They will be extremely pleased that this minor measure has been included. The length of the debate that we had to suffer on this matter in Committee was a great surprise, since the Opposition then agreed.
Overstaying is dealt with in clause 5. Many people in Britain will not understand that, before this Bill, the law gave little opportunity to prosecute those who were found to have overstayed in Britain. They will have been profoundly worried by some of the implications of stories appearing in The Sunday Times this weekend about people who were clearly here on some dubious pretext in pursuit of some kind of college education. Whatever the reason for such people being induced to come here, such stories undermine confidence in our immigration policies. Our measures on overstaying seek to plug that important gap.
There is much in a Library note on overstaying which underpins my support for clause 1. It refers to the evasion of immigration control printed as an annex to the Commission for Racial Equality's report on immigration control procedures in 1985.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Jack: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I have some information to give and only a little time in which to give it.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute to the debate, I am sure that he will have an adequate opportunity to do so.
The report to which I referred said:
Overstaying constitutes a greater problem than illegal entry because of the large number of people involved.
Clause 5 seeks to address and tighten the legal loopholes on overstaying.
I have a relatively simple view of the matter. Someone who comes to Britain must abide by our regulations. It is not just a matter of coming here for six or 12 months and then finding some way around the regulations. The Bill

makes it relatively easy for those with bona fide reasons to come to Britain for various lengths of time, but it tries to tighten up on those who seek to abuse our regulations.
The tightening-up measures in the Bill will do much to reassure the bulk of the British people that the Conservative party takes immigration control seriously, but couples that with a deep concern for good-quality race relations.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I shall be brief because I know that my hon. Friends want to have a good innings, having sat patiently through the Committee stage of the Bill. I was unable to serve on that Committee, and I apologise to the House for not having been present earlier. It was because I was engaged in other parliamentary duties. Many of us suffer from the fact that we have to be in two places at the same time.
At this late stage of the Bill, I want to reflect on some of its provisions, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that it seems to have had something to do with the general election. As I said on Second Reading, in order to secure a majority in Parliament, the Tories had to try to make out that they would do much better on immigration control. They tried to make out that they would be much tougher on immigration control — which meant keeping black people out of Britain—than a Labour Administration would be. That has been underscored, and it is right that it should have been.
Secondly, what is proposed is intertwined with the mess that the Home Office has got into administratively. It has not been prepared to employ sufficient additional staff to overcome that difficulty, and things are still in a mess.
The rules that followed the 1971 Act are of extreme importance and are debated in the House from time to time. They have for a long time been much too harshly drawn. The immigration Minister, because that is what he is, is not, he tells me, also the race relations Minister. It is a matter of some consequence that the two jobs in the Home Office seem to have been separated. I assumed in the Second Reading debate that the hon. Gentleman was the race relations Minister as well as the immigration Minister. All through the years, those two jobs have been intertwined, because they are, in conscience and in administration, inseparable.
The immigration Minister is thus now protected from having to visit from time to time the areas that are most concerned with these problems. He goes to the Indian subcontinent, and I do not know whether he also goes to the West Indies and Africa, and he would gain from such experiences, but he is not able to gain from visiting the areas most concerned. Former Ministers, whether Labour or Tory, have so gained. It was because I wanted to question him on the separation of the duties that I sought to intervene in his speech—and he can intervene now, if he so wishes.
I will tell the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) why the attitude to which he referred exists in the black community in Britain. The mood is that this is the Tories at it again. They expect to get harsher immigration restrictions from the Tories. That is why, by and large, they vote Labour at general elections.
There is no reason why the present immigration Minister should go down this road. He could emerge as the most humane and the sanest immigration Minister of all


time. I believe that he is a man who is capable of listening, and above all of listening to me, a Member with the experience that I have had over the years. I pay tribute to the Home Office staff for the co-operation that I have always had from them. I hardly miss an opportunity of saying that, because I think that I owe it to them. Their courteous attitude to me is something that I cherish. They have been of enormous assistance to me over the years, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree about that.
In the light of these additional restrictions on immigration and the removal of the differences between those who came after the operation of the 1971 Act in 1973, and those who were here before that, and in the light of the visa restriction on visitors, which is a harsher control than hitherto because it has cut out the temporary admissions that hon. Members were able to arrange, I do not believe that everything in the garden is lovely. There have been many refusals to grant visas for visits to this country, and there have been special pleadings through me and others to the control overseas. Once that decision is made, appeals are invited, but if someone wishes to visit Britain for family purposes, or even to play Kabbodi in a tournament here, and a blank refusal has been given in Delhi, it is not much good appealing when the appeal will be heard long after the application and when the tournament is over. The appeal system has not coped with the consequences of the restrictions imposed overseas.
We need more flexibility. We were challenged to say that we would remove this element of immigration control. I do not know whether we would, but we would certainly go very deeply into the administration of the whole system. The present system is very rough justice and, if we could achieve justice only by chucking out the visa system altogether, we would do so.
Our policy is to review substantially the British Nationality Act 1981, which took away the right of children born in this country whose parents were not British citizens automatically to be regarded as British citizens. There was no need at all for that, and as a result of one of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors going to Southall that was to some extent mitigated. That is the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman will be missing. As a consequence of that visit, a change was made for children who were resident in Britain, regardless of the status of parents, and that still prevails as far as I know.
The Minister could have come to the House and said that there was such a terrible mess in the Home Office that he wanted to cut down the administrative activities; that they had promised in the election that they would be tougher than a Labour Government but that he would look again at the immigration rules. We have not finished with him yet. He is going to come back and tell us how they propose to change the immigration rules. We shall be looking anxiously for the details of that.
One thing that the Minister could do is relax the restrictions on the widow who wants to come to Britain to join her offspring, on the grounds that she is emotionally attached to her children and grandchildren here, instead of applying the harsh rule that she has a close relative to turn to and is not wholly dependent on her offspring in this country. He could ease that considerably, and he would be the pin-up boy in the areas affected by these problems.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to be a good immigration Minister. When his colleague at the Home Office comes to areas such as mine to have a powwow and go into the realities of these matters, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come along as well. He will not get eggs chucked at him, as immigration Ministers are said to have had in other areas. He will get a constructive agenda for the discussion of the nitty-gritty matters that could not be sewn up in the 1971 Act.
The rules need continuous review, especially over the $64,000 question of husbands and wives and their purpose in wanting to come here. There are women now waiting for their husbands to join them, or perhaps they are over in India with their husbands who are trying to get them back here to settle, as is their right. This is what the Government's policy is supposed to be about, and it is what the European convention on human rights is supposed to be about.
Even when a child is born to a couple, it is still said that their marriage was one of convenience. All marriages are a matter of convenience. My marriage was a matter of convenience. What is a marriage of convenience? A marriage is an agreement between two people, and they have to see each other, but that is not enough. There may be a delicate balance as to whether the young man or woman wants to come to Britain simply for economic purposes after the marriage, but that should be good enough and the rules should be changed accordingly. I give the Minister those two tips so that he may be seen in a better light than at present in the eyes of the black community.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I speak in support of the Bill because it represents an intention to tighten the regulations on immigration and to ease the considerable pressure on Lunar house. I represent 7,000 Sikh constituents in Gravesend and Northfleet. Every week at my surgeries I come across cases involving immigration and I deal with them as any other Member would. Some cases cause considerable concern and it is clear that the regulations must be improved. The Bill represents improvement, but at each stage of the recent improvement we have had the same scaremongering from Labour Members, which worries vulnerable people in the community.
I refer to a case in point. The Government wisely introduced visas for visitors from India and elsewhere, in the light of the terrible scenes that used to occur at Heathrow, where people came to this country from India and elsewhere to visit their families and did not know until they got here whether they would be admitted. This put unreasonable strain on the traveller and on my constituents who went to meet their families, so the Government sensibly arranged for the clearances to be done in India through the visa system.
How was the new regulation received by Opposition Members? I noticed that when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was asked whether Labour would repeal the visa requirement, he wriggled on the hook and did not give a clear answer. Opposition Members are concerned only to cash in and play on the fears of people.
The House should be told how the visa operation is progressing. I quote from a report of the community relations officer in my borough, a Sikh gentleman who is


also a Labour councillor, by the name of Mr. Gurdev Singh Talwar. He travelled to New Delhi and visited the high commission to see how the issuing of visas was being handled. Councillor Talwar said:
I went there to find out for myself how the new regulations were working. I was sceptical before my visit, but now I think everything is being done fairly.
He said that while at the high commission he sat in on interviews, and added:
I was quite satisfied with the treatment given to the applicants.
That is from a Labour councillor who is concerned with the real issues affecting the Sikh community in my town. That contrasts remarkably with the emotive claptrap and the kind of comment I heard earlier from Labour Members.

Mr. Madden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the introduction of visas more than 1,000 men, women and children per month have had their visas refused and that, if they choose to appeal against refusal, they must wait 12 months for an appeal? Has he had representations from his constituents, as I have had from mine, about the unfair way in which the visa regime is working?

Mr. Arnold: For the information of the hon. Gentleman, I can do no more than quote from Labour Councillor Talwar, who looked at the number of visa applications processed and the number refused—looked at the facts and figures—and said:
That's certainly less than under the old regulations.

Mr. Madden: That is not true.

Mr. Arnold: This comes from a Labour councillor who is concerned with community relations. If the hon. Gentleman says that that is untrue, perhaps he can sort out another internecine dispute within the Labour party. I am concerned that the immigration controls, which we all accept must be tightly exercised, should be exercised in a humane manner and must be brought up to date. That is what the Bill attempts to do.

Mr. Vaz: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the issue. I have the good fortune of having spent nearly 62 hours in Committee, watching the Minister sitting across the table with a smile like an operation stretch mark, waiting to stab the black and Asian communities in the back with further legislation designed to damage relations between the black and white communities.
Conservative Members opposite have spoken of compassion. All Labour Members who have spoken against the Bill have argued on the ground of compassion that the Bill should be amended substantially.

Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Vaz: No, I will not give way.
We face the intellectual inflexibility of the Minister and some of his silent colleagues. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) had a habit of jumping up and down in Committee and claimed that he was an expert on race relations because he once visited Bangladesh and he was able to speak with some authority on the needs of the black and Asian communities.
The Bill will not, as the Minister says it will, foster good relations between the communities. It will damage

relations, specifically between black and Asian communities and the police. The front line in immigration matters is not Karachi, Dhaka, Calcutta, Bombay or Nairobi; the front line in immigration control has become Coventry, Southall, Bradford, Birmingham, Leicester and London. Family after family come to our surgeries every week and show us that the existing immigration rules and legislation are racist and unfair.
The Bill seeks to limit and restrict the rights of black and Asian people and to truncate the rights of appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) today and previously has highlighted the various clauses of the Bill. It goes beyond the rights that are described. Clause 1 goes beyond restricting rights of appeal and breaks a promise made in 1971 by a previous Conservative Government, a promise that was accepted by successive Labour and Conservative Governments. It affects especially, but not exclusively, the Bangladeshi community in Britain and, because of the crisis in local government and the pressure on housing and local government expenditure, it removes the possibility of men settled here bringing in wives and children from abroad.
Clause 3 removes further rights. Clause 5 makes the offence of overstaying a continuing offence, thus involving the police yet again in immigration control. Clause 4 imposes an arbitrary restriction and time limit of seven years. We were not clear why the Government had introduced that seven-year limit. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes told us that it was because of the legislation relating to limitation—

Mr. Hanley: I did not.

Mr. Vaz: —but, of course, the Minister was able to rebuke him on that occasion, as he did on previous occasions.

Mr. Hanley: rose—

Mr. Vaz: The purpose of legislation was to alter the decision made by members of the Court of Appeal and the other place in a number of immigration cases. It was referred to in an interview which the Minister gave to The Guardian the week before Second Reading, when he described the Bill as
an attempt to close loopholes and to stop judicial activism.
The Bill sought to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal and the other place in such cases as Grant v. Borg.
In the schedules, we find new provisions which will mean that people who apply for indefinite leave to remain in this country will for the first time be charged a fee. Those who have experience of dealing with immigration cases will know that it requires only one letter to be sent to Lunar house. The Government are proposing to add to the £6 million profit that they have made on previous nationality and citizenship matters by charging people.
All the appeals to the Minister from organisations outside the House to try to change or amend the provisions of the Bill fell on deaf ears. Appeals have been made by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and members of the World Council of Churches. A special delegation of black Church leaders went to see the Minister and were treated by him in a patronising way. Other organisations, numerous trade unions and individuals have written to the Minister to complain about the legislation.
The legislation will seek to divide families. It will prevent the unity of families. Those who come to me and to my hon. Friends to complain about the unfairness of the immigration legislation will know what it is like to be caught in the spider's web of immigration control. Organisations in Leicester, such as the Asian Youth Project, Belgrave Bheano, the Self-Help Project, Leicester rights centre and the Highfields advice centre, deal hourly, daily, weekly and monthly with those immigration matters. A constituent of mine, Mrs. Joghirs, has been waiting nine years to be reunited with her husband. It is a long delay when it takes nine years to be reunited with one's family.
In his speech on one of the previous clauses, the Minister made great play of my visit to Lunar house, and said that I arrived 45 minutes late. I wish to correct him, because that is yet another fact that he has got hopelessly wrong. I arrived at 10.30 am last Monday morning, having got up at 4.30 am and driven from Leicester to go to Healthrow airport, where I met members of the immigration service, who told me unanimously that they needed more members of staff at terminal 4.
I arrived at Lunar house to view some of the 200,000 unopened letters which arrive at the rate of 2,000 a week. I saw extraordinary shortages of staff. Out of a full staffing complement of 66, only 30 people were present that morning. Out of the 22 people who should have been answering telephone calls in the public inquiry office, only 11 people were present that day. Out of the 26 people who were sitting in the public inquiry office, not one was able to speak Punjabi or Urdu. That is the state of the crisis at Lunar house.
We should make one point clear. We are in no way criticising members of staff at Lunar house or in the immigration service. They are working under intolerable conditions which have been created by Government policies and the bad management of one person — the Minister on the Treasury Bench. If the Minister had any decency he would resign. If any other Department of Government had 200,000 unopened letters, I think the Minister would have proffered his resignation.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Vaz: I will give way when I have finished this point.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Vaz: I will give way in a moment. I do not know why the Minister is getting so excited.
The Minister has talked about the waste of taxpayers' money on me being shown round Lunar house. I am a Member of Parliament who has dealt with over 2,000 immigration cases since my election. The Minister recently went to the sub-continent. The cost of his trip was £10,600. I think that the exependiture involved in one morning on one person being shown round Lunar house by one official is quite proper for a Member of Parliament who deals with the number of immigration cases that I deal with.

Mr. Renton: For the record, the timetable that I have from Lunar house of the hon. Gentleman's visit is that he arrived at 10.45 am, 45 minutes late and not 30 minutes late; perhaps his watch was wrong. He departed at 2.20

pm. During that time he spent one and a half hours at a local engagement. The time spent in Lunar house was two hours five minutes precisely.
The question I should like to ask him is: what does he think he achieved? All the figures that he has given about unopened letters have been dealt with already by me in answers to questions. When he came to see me at the Home Office the next day, why did he not discuss the problems and suggest solutions rather than run off to tell his story to The Independent as quickly as he could?

Mr. Vaz: The Minister has a nerve to tell us that we have not raised these matters before. We have raised them every day in Committee. We have proffered examples. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) and I have come forward with solutions, but he chose not to take those solutions.
Four days after I went to Lunar house and released my findings to the press, the Minister got on his broomstick and went from Queen Anne's gate to Croydon, where he had discussions with the unions. [Interruption.] I am delighted that, four days after my well-publicised visit to Croydon, the Minister made a visit himself to meet the unions and to come up with his proposals. It is important to show the Minister — —[Interruption.] The Minister should not interrupt so much; he should listen to what I am saying, and I will explain why his proposals will not work.
The Minister tells me that the crisis occurred at Lunar house because he was so successful; he was the victim of his own success and his own public relations exercise. He says that because, the week before the deadline on 31 December, he made a broadcast, which we heard on Radio Leicester, urging people to apply for citizenship, and everyone decided to apply.
I can tell the Minister something that he has not told the House: there are 72,000 passports in Lunar house at present. He nods his head. I am surprised that when he went to Croydon he did not get that information from the officials. Perhaps they were terrified of him. I asked this very question of the officials; I asked, "How many passports do you estimate are at Lunar House?" Their estimate, which they have not told the Minister, was 72,000. Therefore, 72,000 people have been waiting for their passports to be returned by the Minister.
The Minister came to the House, not before time, and apologised for the delay. He agreed that the delay was unacceptable. He said that the work load had risen because of his marvellous public relations. He proposes that there will be an emergency deployment of 160 members of staff—that is, 160 members of the existing staff. On Monday morning of last week, the head of the post room was in negotiation with the trade union for three and one half hours; I do not know whether the Minister knows that. When the Minister went to Croydon on Friday, I am sure that he spoke to officials and to members of the trade unions.
The proposals of the officials to send back the 72,000 passports and to acknowledge the receipt of 200,000 letters will cause further delay for people, because the Home Office is not even considering photocopying the passports before they are sent back. That will mean that, at a later date, Home Office officials must write back to applicants and those seeking a variation of leave, to ask for the passports to be returned. That will certainly create further


delays. I hope that the Minister will take this suggestion back to his officials, that those passports are photocopied before they are sent back to people, and kept in appropriate places in Lunar house.
The second suggestion I have to make is that, instead of redeploying staff, the Minister should take on additional staff immediately. One way to ensure that this mail was opened would have been to send some of these hard-working officials, whose time he has wasted tonight sitting in this useless Report stage, back to Lunar house today. If they had been sent back there today, each of them would have been able to open at least 1,000 letters over these six hours of debate.
Not only that but, in relation to a question I raised earlier but which was not answered by the Minister, at 7 o'clock tonight in Leicester there was a meeting of five of the most senior Home Office officials from Lunar house, who were meeting community organisations. Neither myself, the Member of Parliament for Leicester, East nor my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) who is sitting in the Chamber, nor my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was informed of this visit by Home Office officials.
It was only after I tabled a Question on 9 February that, two days later, a letter arrived from the Minister informing me that the officials were to visit Leicester the next day. The parliamentary Question was replied to on Monday 15 February, and the meeting was tonight. How was it possible for my colleagues and myself to be in Leicester to hear what the Home Office officials say, when we are supposed to be here in the House opposing this squalid legislation?
If those five officials, instead of being sent to Leicester, were added to the nine officials who are sitting here, and sent to Lunar house in Croydon, that would be one way to solve the crisis of understaffing at Lunar house.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Vaz: No, the Minister can take up this point in his wind-up. He will have plenty of time.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Vaz: I will not give way.
When the Minister spoke earlier, he gave us no new information about the way in which representations by Members of Parliament operated. All he said was that he was seeking consultation.
I will give way to the Minister in a minute if he hangs on, when I have developed this point. I would like the Minister to tell us in his wind-up speech, if he is proposing to wind up, why Members of Parliament who represent areas such as Leicester, London, Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry, Manchester and Glasgow, who take up many immigration cases, are not being consulted about these new proposals. The Minister may grimace, but I have not received a letter from the Minister asking my views about representations in immigration cases. I will give way to the Minister now.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member is not yet speaking for the Opposition on immigration matters. That may be his ambition, but he is not yet in that position.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on this matter. I believe that the right

hon. Member for Sparkbrook still speaks for the Opposition on immigration matters. Perhaps he will give a copy of his letter to the hon. Member for Leicester, East.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about advising him about Home Office officials visiting Leicester. I know very well that I signed that letter to him and to other hon. Members representing Leicester constituencies on Thursday 11 February. We did not know until Thursday that the debate was to be today. I wrote to the hon Member on 11 February. I should have thought that he would congratulate the Home Office on sending senior officials to Leicester, as they have been to Blackburn, to explain to his community leaders what is happening about the Immigration Bill. The Home Office officials are there at the invitation of Leicester county council.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. This Third Reading debate lends itself to fairly wide discussion, but I should like to hear a little more about the Bill.

Mr. Vaz: I am only introducing matters in the same way that the Minister did when he moved the Third Reading. His point is wholly frivolous. The meeting was planned two months ago. It was planned because Home Office officials wrote to the county council two months ago and requested a visit to Leicester. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West and I were not informed until 12 February. The letter was signed 11 February, and received the following day. My parliamentary question was put down on 9 February, when I requested information on why the meeting was taking place without the Members being informed. Before the Minister comes back to the House with the details of his consultation, the Opposition would like to see a list of the individuals and organisations whom he will be consulting.
I am pleased that the Minister has now accepted that the DNA report is completed, and Opposition Members would like to pay tribute to the work of Doctor Alec Jeffreys from Leicester university, who pioneered the scheme. I hope that the Minister will not come to us at a later date and cast doubt on the authenticity or the authority of the report, because Opposition Members believe that it should be accepted. I also believe that the test should be made freely available, and that the cost of £105 is absurdly high.
In conclusion, let me say that the Opposition Members who sat on the Immigration Bill Committee realise one thing—

Mr. Renton: It was a waste of time.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister says that it was a waste of time. I believe that immigration issues are of great importance to many people in this country. However, we cannot see a single clause or even sentence in the Bill that will relieve the hardship and misery of the many thousands who wait in queues—not just those waiting for applications in this country, but those who are confined to the misery of a queue in Karachi, Dhaka, Bombay and Calcutta.
The Minister now has his one opportunity to say firmly that he will withdraw the Bill. Otherwise, he will have the greif and misery of millions of people on his conscience for the rest of his life.

Mr. Hanley: I merely want to put on record three or four facts that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr.


Vaz) would not allow me to mention in the middle of his speech. The gross discourtesy with which he refused to allow me to intervene was not something that I should like people to imitate, either inside or outside the House. It is sad that someone who, as we know, has better manners was so frightened and shaky that he had to deny me the chance of making a comment during his speech.
The hon. Gentleman said that immigration law was, by its very nature, racist. He said that the Conservative Government, in the way that they have introduced changes to immigration law since 1979, were also racist. But how can a Government be racist when since they came to office they have allowed in, for permanent settlement, more than 600,000 people, over half of whom have come from the Indian sub-continent? How can a Government be racist when, since 1979, they have allowed in more than 25,000 refugees—and, of course, 20,000 Vietnamese boat people?
This cannot be a racist Government. True racism is choosing to exploit race for one's own purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "For political purposes."] For political purposes— indeed. Racism is choosing to manufacture fears where they do not naturally exist. It is true racism to use those from a particular racial background for political purposes, and to whip up their anxieties to manufacture —as the hon. Member for Leicester, East has shown today—fears based not on a law that is ultra-restrictive and aimed specifically at people of a particular colour, but on a minor administrative law tightening loopholes that have been exploited by those who, I should have thought, have caused as much shame to the hon. Gentleman as to others in the House.
Too many people try to exploit immigration. As I have said, more than 600,000 people have patiently applied to settle in this country by using the immigration rules that were set down by the party of the hon. Member for Leicester, East when in government, and by our own Government. However, there are those who cannot bear to wait and who decide to push ahead. Many are helped by those who exploit them financially and mercilessly, as I have seen in Bangladesh. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have more respect for a law that has been democratically passed by this Parliament, but no, he looks for loopholes so that they can be exploited. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will live to regret that. One day, in some far distant future, he might have some responsibility for immigration in this country—although I doubt it—and perhaps he will then live to regret some of the words that he has used tonight.
Good race relations are essential. Firm immigration control is a part of society's framework that leads to good race relations. Unrestricted immigration will lead to bad race relations. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, East, and his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who made long contributions in Committee, will realise that there is considerable passion, concern and affection for those in our community who make up our multiracial state.
We believe that orderly immigration is essential for an orderly society. The Labour party—especially some of its newer and younger Members—seems to think that exploiting the race issue will bring them favour. It will not do so, even among the communities that they claim to represent. Let them listen to their wiser brethren, and

perhaps eventually they will understand that playing the race game for political purposes is cheap, cynical and disgraceful.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The Minister accused me of speaking on this subject, and specifically on the Bill, with passion. He made that accusation as if it was entirely negative. I advise him that I plead guilty, and I hope that I will always speak with passion in this House on issues about which I feel strongly. That is what my constituents, both black and white, would expect.
Conservative Members have implied that the number of hours that we spent on the Bill in Committee was, in some sense, a waste of time. I beg to differ. Although it is a relatively short Bill, it will have wide-ranging effects on the civil liberties of thousands of people. My hon. Friends believe that it was right to spend as much time on the Bill as we did.
I wish to pick up two specific points that the Minister made. He started by saying that the intention of the Bill was to make control fairer. I cannot see how that will happen. Hon. Members have referred—as I do—to the plight of the Bengali community in Tower Hamlets. This is the single largest community that will be affected by clause 1, which takes away rights that were promised to Commonwealth citizens way back in 1971. The Minister knows perfectly well that the Bengali community is the largest single community that is still attempting to reunite its families.
When the Bill becomes law, the Bengali community and other affected groups will find that the promise that was made to them by successive Conservative Governments and their Ministers that they could bring in their families without let or hindrance will be taken away. They will find themselves in double jeopardy. They cannot bring their families in unless they can provide housing, but they cannot get local authority housing because their families are not with them. I suggest to the Minister that to the average Bengali resident of Tower Hamlets it is not at all clear how the Bill will make immigration control fairer. On the contrary, it will inevitably lead to separated families.
The Minister talked about the Bill protecting the rights of people who are already here. On the contrary, in many instances all that the Bill will do is take away peoples' rights. The Minister talked about the Bill making controls fairer, yet the Bill will put overstayers in double jeopardy. [Interruption.] Anyone in the Gallery listening to Conservative Members' comments would believe that the Government had no recourse against overstayers. That is quite wrong. There are already clear and effective administrative procedures for deporting overstayers. By adding a criminal sanction to the administrative procedures that already exist, overstayers are being put in double jeopardy quite unnecessarily.
The Bill is supposed to make control fairer. One of its most unfortunate aspects — as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and I said in Committee—is that in certain cases it will limit the right of appeal. I realise that to the Minister and Conservative Members anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and I say about immigration is in some sense invalid. Perhaps the 1957 Franks report will carry


some credibility with Conservative Members, and I therefore quote what that report said about the right of appeal:
The existence of a right of appeal is salutary and makes for right adjudication.
The Wilson committee report of 1967 said:
It is fundamentally wrong and inconsistent with the rule of law that power to take decisions affecting a man's whole future should be vested in officers of the executive from whose findings there was no appeal.
Conservative Members may sneer at my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and me when we raise these matters, but they have been fundamental matters of public procedure for many many years and the limitation of the right of appeal is just one of the issues on which the Bill ought to give right-thinking people cause for concern, and just one of the ways in which we believe that, far from making control fairer, the Bill will make control less fair.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Ms. Abbott: If the Minister will allow me, I shall develop my argument.
The Minister claimed for the Bill that, as well as making control fairer, it would enhance stability and the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) talked very generally about immigration controls promoting good race relations. I put it to the Minister that the Bill will not enhance stability. Quite apart from the general atmosphere of uncertainty that it will create, there is the specific question of the way in which it will widen the role of the police in immigration control. By virtue of the clause that makes overstaying a criminal offence for all time, the Government are necessarily extending the role of the police in immigration control.
I am aware that what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and I say on this matter carries no credibility with Conservative Members. I would hope that what William Whitelaw, the then Home Secretary, said in 1980 carries at least a little credibility with them. He said:
The enforcement of the immigration laws is among the most delicate of the tasks which the police have to perform.
The 1984–85 report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs said:
The involvement of the police in the administration of immigration control has sometimes harmed their relationship with ethnic minorities".
The Commission for Racial Equality has said:
The police should not participate in immigration control work as a matter of routine.
Public policy in the early 1980s was moving away from the routine involvement of the police in immigration control because it was recognised that it did nothing for community relations. By criminalising overstayers, the Government are widening the role of the police in immigration control. We believe that that is not in the interests of stability in the community. The Government have ample administrative sanctions against overstayers. Day in and day out, my constituents are caught in that net. There is no need for these criminalising provisions. Their wider ramifications for community relations give us cause for concern.
The Minister accused us, with more vehemence than he showed in Committee, of exciting fear and promoting disharmony. Perhaps it would help him if I explained what excites fear and promotes disharmony. What excites fear and promotes disharmony among my constituents is the case of Marion Gaima. She has been in this country since 1973, she is aged nearly 40, she is frightened to return to

her country of birth for political reasons, she has twice had the police knock at her door, and twice she has spent time in police cells, accused of overstaying. For many months she has lived in fear of her future and the threat of deportation. That is what excites fear and promotes disharmony.
I should tell the Government that what most excited fear and promoted disharmony in the early 1980s were fishing raids on factories, shops and restaurants, when dozens of black people were taken away, but in the end perhaps a handful of overstayers were found. People had their homes raided in the middle of the night. It was those midnight fishing raids that excited fear and promoted disharmony. Even without this criminalising clause in the Bill, my constituents are stopped in the streets or while driving their cars and asked for their passports. When they visit hospitals for treatment, they are asked for their passports. That is what excites fear and promotes disharmony.
Every week in my surgery, I see constituents whose elderly relatives are humiliated at Heathrow and Gatwick when they try to come here for a holiday. The atmosphere surrounding registration for nationality and all the problems and troubles connected with it—many of my constituents had to get forms and find the money to register—excites fear and promotes disharmony.
In 1987 Conservative Members returned from the subcontinent and said that 25 per cent. of wives seeking entry to this country were polygamous wives. That matter made the front page of The Times, but later those Members had to retract that remark. We have now found that there are about only 20 cases per year of polygamous wives trying to enter this country. Such ill-considered remarks promote fear.
The casual remarks of the Prime Minister about swamping excites fear and promotes disharmony. The proposals that are being introduced to limit the rights of Members of Parliament to speak and act for their constituents will promote fear. Many Opposition Members can speak —

Mr. Hanley: rose—

Ms. Abbott: With the greatest respect, I have sat through the entire debate without speaking. The hon. Gentleman has spoken many times, and he must allow me to develop my point.
The Minister spoke of inciting fear and disharmony, and I was trying to tell him that it is not I, or my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, or Opposition Members, who promote fear and disharmony. It is the nature and implementation of our immigration legislation, and the atmosphere created by the remarks of some Conservative Members—

Mr. Renton: rose—

Ms. Abbott: If the Minister will only allow me—

Mr. Renton: rose—

Ms. Abbott: I would dearly love to give way, but I have sat through the entire debate and I wish to draw my remarks to a close.

Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been sitting here watching the Minister's behaviour. If all Tory Ministers were to act in the way that he has acted this evening, they would be an utter disgrace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman leaves that to the Chair.

Ms. Abbott: The Minister has accused us of creating fear and disharmony. We beg to differ. We are merely trying to act as responsible representatives should and reflect the genuine fears of our constituents. The Minister has claimed that the Bill will bring about no major changes, but we believe that the Bill, and its legacy if it becomes law, will mean that British residents who happen to be black will have fewer rights than EEC nationals to bring in their children, parents and grandparents.
The Minister referred to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and myself in Committee. To give him credit, he did so with only the merest hint of condescension in his voice. We plead guilty to feeling strongly about immigration and to being new hon. Members. However, we believe that history will show that it was no bad thing that the Committee that examined the Bill for so many hours genuinely reflected, for the first time, our multiracial community.
We have been accused of tunnel vision and, explicitly and implicitly, of reflecting the views only of black and ethnic minority people. Opposition Members think that immigration control is not a matter only for black and ethnic minority residents of this country—or only for white residents. The nature, implementation and administration of immigration control is a matter for anyone who is concerned about fairness, justice and equity in public administration. It was in the spirit of concern for fairness, justice and equity that we kept the Minister and Conservative Members considering the Bill for so many hours and came here to fight on Third Reading. We do not apologise for our passion, because if the issues that the Bill covers are not worth being passionate about, few issues that come before the House are.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I must admit that, after listening to Opposition Members rehearse the same arguments time and again for 62 hours, it is difficult to remember exactly what we are discussing. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) for referring to equity, and I am particularly keen to dwell on that notion.
I believe that remarks made on both sides of the House about fear and disharmony are not beneficial to immigration matters and are certainly not beneficial to race relations. I believe that it was positively harmful to racial harmony when the Leader of the Opposition said, in India, that he would repeal the Immigration Act 1971.
I hope that Opposition Members — I especially address this remark to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)—will remember that DNA testing is- not in any way a carte blanche entry system that will enhance their political positions. They should not use DNA testing for that purpose. Such testing can prove extremely harmful to family relationships in ethnic communities—I ask them please to be aware of that. I make the same appeal to my hon. Friends.
I have had a number of representations on this subject and it is distinctly clear, especially among the Asian community, that the test is something to which they do not look forward. It needs careful treatment and I beg Opposition Members to remember that fact and to

remember that serious family consequences may ensue if it is mishandled. That matter was aired at length in Committee, so I will not detain the House by discussing it further.

Mr. Jim Marshall: rose—

Mr. Hargreaves: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later.
In the interests of racial harmony, I also hope that Opposition Members remember that Conservative Members, including those of us who served on the Committee and who listened to the arguments put forward by Opposition Members, also represent the interests of true racial harmony. No matter what the disparity which may exist between the numbers of immigrants whom we may represent, Opposition Members must not instantly dismiss what we say as either meaningless or unrepresentative. Conservative Members who served on that Committee, as well as others of my hon. Friends, care very greatly about racial harmony in this country. Therefore, we ask the Opposition to take our remarks seriously. I support the Bill.

Mr. Pat Wall: The Bill is unnecessary. It does not arise from any great social upheaval or any threat of mass immigration to this country. It would appear to follow proposals made by senior Home Office civil servants some years ago. In essence, it serves much the same purpose for immigration as the think tank conducted by the present Secretary of State for the Environment when he was considering trade unions.
Most of the Bill's provisions affect a relatively small number of people and therefore its harshness is particularly repugnant. However, it affects a substantial number of people in relation to the abolition of the right of men, settled here before January 1973, to bring their wives and children to this country without first having to satisfy the various marriage tests, including the notorious primary purpose test, and the various accommodation and needs tests.
The Bill arises from the Government's peculiarly warped attitude to sexual equality or, indeed, to any form of equality. The Government were brought before the European Court of Human Rights for discrimination against women in the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971. The Bill, instead of giving women the same rights as men, brings men down to the same level suffered by women. On shift work and night work in industry, the Government take the opposite tack, but with a similar result. Women have been brought up to the same level of exploitation as men regarding such work. No doubt in future the Government will equalise the retirement age at 65 on the grounds of equality.
As has been pointed out, the last major influx of immigrants into Britain were Bangladeshis who arrived in the 1970s, fell victims to the recession of 1974–5, and suffered even more from the worse recession in 1981–82. They did not come here in the same way as earlier immigrants, who were enticed here as a source of cheap labour at at time of full employment and relative boom. They came during a recession in which they suffered greatly.
That meant that it was much harder for them to gather together the material needs to bring their wives and


children to settle in Britain than it was for the people who arrived in more prosperous times. They have had to compete for jobs in a declining market in the manufacturing industry, heavy industry and certain sections of plublic service. As they were the last major group to come here, their mastery of English is less good and that has made it even more difficult for them to compete for jobs.
I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) the representation of an area in the city of Bradford called Manningham. A housing survey was conducted by the Bangladeshi youth organisation on the Cornwall road area in my constituency. The housing needs of Asian residents in Manningham are entirely relevant to the Bill as it relates to the repeal of section 1(5) of the 1971 Act.
A higher proportion of Bangladeshis than other ethnic groups have not been able to bring their wives and children to Britain because they have lacked the economic means to do so. Home Office figures show that in 1986, 30 per cent. of wives given entry clearance to come to Britain were coming to live with people who came from India before 1973. The comparable figure for Pakistan was 55 per cent. and for Bangladesh was 70 per cent.
If the Bill is passed, unlike Common Market citizens who have no such tests and old Commonwealth citizens including white South Africans who rarely suffer such tests, all new Commonwealth citizens and citizens of Pakistan will have to satisfy the accommodation and needs test. That is discrimination on the basis of colour, class and material wealth. The poorest male immigrants take the longest to bring over their wives and children, and they will suffer most through the repeal of section 1(5). They are most likely to fail the needs and accommodation tests, and they and their families will be permanently divided.
I should like to quote one section from Manningham housing report:
The existence of owner occupation cannot be taken as an indication of high standards of housing or indeed wealth. Owner-occupation has become the only alternative to over-occupied scarce rented housing. In order to meet the economic burdens of mortgage repayments and housing maintenance, the sharing arrangements by large Asian families alleviates to some degree the serious level of poverty.
High percentages of home ownership have therefore been achieved by economies of scale in the presence of relatively larger numbers of persons per house. The cost of homeownership in social terms is revealed by cramped and severely overcrowded conditions within the Asian community. The largely held assumption of home ownership being linked to prosperity is therefore deceptive. Whilst there undoubtedly exists a greater inclination and desire for owner-occupied housing within the Asian community, the availability of large rented houses is non-existent.
In that survey, out of 772 people old enough to take up employment, only 117 were employed. In large numbers of extended family houses, no person had a job, and in the vast majority, only one person had a job. That happened against a background in the city of Bradford of a backlog of £60 million in housing repairs and cuts in housing improvement grants which has meant that in the past few years, 10,000 people have been refused those grants.
Those are not the clever schoolboy words, jokes and remarks of Conservative Members. This is the real world in which Asian working people in Bradford live. They have appalling housing conditions with little chance of a job. They are directly affected by the Bill because they have virtually no chance of bringing their children and wives to Britain to unite their families.
The removal of the right of appeal for overstayers, whether they deliberately flout the immigration laws or overstay or because they face severe domestic or personal problems, is a draconian and inhuman act. Overstaying is a summary offence and summary offences attract only moderate penalties under our law. The maximum penalty is usually six months in gaol and a relatively limited fine.
Deportation is much more serious than six months in gaol or a fine. Deportation means the break-up of families, losing a job, depriving children of a parent, and, for refugees and those seeking political asylum, it can mean imprisonment, torture and death. Therefore, our consistent demand on Second Reading and in Committee for an independent system of adjudication and appeal for deportation cases is a most modest, reasonable and humane demand. The Minister's refusal to accept that demand is a real condemnation of the Bill.
I want to add one point to those made so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott). There will be police intervention because of the criminalisation of overstayers. One would think that the Scarman report on the Brixton riots had never been written. To return to a situation where people can be stopped in the street on the basis that they are overstayers or illegal immigrants will create enormous problems for Britain's black community. Anyone who is really serious about race relations will have to think about that.
My hon. Friend is right. We are moving towards the pass laws so hated in South Africa. People already have to produce their passports in hospitals or in DHSS offices. They will now have to carry them everywhere in case they are stopped in the pub, the club, the street or their place of worship by the police for questioning about whether they are illegal immigrants or overstayers. That is exactly the same situation as in South Africa at present.
The only liberal, reasonable part of the Bill is the clause that deals with the Common Market. It gives 230 million citizens in the EEC the right to come here freely, to bring their spouses, their children, their parents, their grandparents, and, in some cases, their grandchildren. It gives them the right to take a job without restriction, to use our social services without restriction and to set up in business without the sort of financial penalties imposed on Asian business men coming to Britain. I welcome that— I am no little Englander; I believe in internationalism—but that is a sharp contrast to the position of black people coming to Britain.
When the first immigrants were attracted and enticed to Britain, it was in the hope that they would provide a source of cheap labour in heavy industry, manufacturing and the public services at a time of full employment. The economy has now moved away from those industries and that is why black unemployment is twice the average level of unemployment in Britain. We have now moved more into service industries.
I predict that the rights of Common Market citizens will mean that the Portuguese, Spaniards and Greeks, who earn even less than British workers, may well be attracted to Britain's hotels, restaurants and service industry. Anti-trade union employers in those industries may hope that they will provide another source of cheap labour. If they come, they will learn, like the Caribbean and Indian subcontinent workers who came here in the past, how to join trade unions and how to fight.
I will make another prediction. If the Conservatives are faced with electoral defeat in the future, there will be a new immigration Bill, an anti-EEC bill aimed at those workers, because that is precisely the role that the Tory party has played in immigration throughout its history.

Mr. Alun Michael: I confess to some trepidation in speaking from the Dispatch Box for the first time, but I have no such doubts about the need to speak out vigorously against a Bill that will do enormous damage to family life, community relations in the United Kingdom and Britain's reputation abroad as a country which values justice and humanity.
In Committee, Opposition Members sought earnestly, repeatedly and at length even to persuade the Minister of the damage that the Bill will do if it becomes law. We have tried again tonight, and hon. Members who were not in the Committee will now appreciate the contrast between the points made by Opposition Members, based on considerable practical experience, and the bureaucratic incantations with which the Minister has replied.
Tonight, in opening the debate, the hon. Gentleman sought to insult my hon. Friends in order again to avoid the real issues at stake in the discussion of the Bill. Simple logic has exposed the Bill as a hollow sham. On the one hand, the Minister has told us that it is a simple, modest measure that will have minimal impact on genuine applicants. On the other hand, the Government have pushed it through with a vigour that owes more to the electoral calculations of Conservative Central Office last May and June than to knowledge and experience of immigration practice. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) cannot dissociate himself from those electoral calculations as he tried to do tonight except by voting against the Bill, and I hope that he will do that.
We believe that the numbers involved as a result of the Bill may be small, but the damage to family life for those involved and to community relations generally will be enormous. The questions are simple.
The first is how, in any logical sense, it can be compassionate or humane to extend the separation of families as the Bill will do. I received a letter, as many of us in the Opposition do today, saying, on behalf of the family concerned:
Please will you help this family and rescue them from worry and despair. They want to be back together again as a family.
That is just one example, but the Minister today has been anecdotal as well, and it is an example of the sort of thing that has been brought up by Opposition Members continually in Committee. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall), for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) have given example after example which one would have expected to persuade the Minister, had he been willing to respond to the arguments being put forward.
The Minister sought tonight to lecture us on community relations, but how can it help community relations to make it more difficult for families to be reunited? The Minister has claimed that the Bill will help community relations. This week I spoke to the community relations people in my constituency and they responded

with disbelief, disquiet and anger that the Minister should make such a suggestion. On the other hand, the Minister has produced no evidence at all for his contention that community relations will be helped.
The anger of the Opposition and the anger in the immigrant communities is based on knowledge and experience. If right hon. and hon. Members doubt me, I suggest that they listen instead to the voice of the British Council of Churches as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). The Minister doubted the authenticity of that voice, so a group of distinguished black Church leaders met him and have raised their voices passionately in opposition to the Bill, but in tones of reasonableness and patience. He has not listened to them either.
Will the Government listen to no one who seeks to help by trying to remove their blinkers on this Bill? Compassion has been talked of a great deal in Committee and today. I am sure that the Minister is compassionate when circumstances allow him to be himself, but he has sought to tell us that the removal of statutory appeal rights will do no damage because appellate authorities would draw his attention to any compassionate grounds so that he could consider them. He has repeated that argument today.
On this matter he will not listen to Labour Members, who pointed out that the appellate authorities are ruled out of making such considerations and that they stick to the rules and refuse to hear argument on compassionate grounds. They say that they do not have to pass on compassionate grounds to the Minister, and the chief appellate officer thinks that they should not do so in any event.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Immigration Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Ryder.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Michael: The Minister was so confident in suggesting that compassionate grounds would be considered by him that we thought we might be wrong and that all the lawyers who are experienced in immigration case law and those involved in immigrant welfare were mistaken, so this week I gave the Minister a chance to prove his point. I asked him two written questions. The first was
in what proportion of cases in which he received a recommendation from the appellate authorities in respect of individuals appealing against refusal to vary leave to remain in the United Kingdom the adjudicators have (a) refused to hear or consider compassionate grounds and (b) made no recommendation that he should exercise his discretion to consider compassionate grounds".
Even more tellingly, I asked him
how many recommendations he has received from the appellate authorities in respect of individuals appealing against refusal to vary leave to remain in the United Kindom during each of the last three years; on how many of those cases the adjudicator recommended that he should consider compassionate circumstances; and in how many of those cases he did exercise discretion in compassionate circumstances.
They were detailed questions which the Minister should have found it easy to answer, but what was the answer? In both cases it was:


No central record of these recommendations is held." —[Official Report, 15 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 439.]
In other words, the Minister, on a central point in his justification of the Bill, does not know, and the Government do not know. He may not have known at the beginning of the debate in Committee and he may not have known at the Second Reading, but he has had time to find out. The Minister and the Government do not want to know.
We have yet to see the true extent of the Government's rush to minimise humanity in this field of law. The Bill is bad enough, but its administration will be in accordance with immigration rules which have yet to be published. On 3 December, the Minister promised in Committee that he would give us those details. He did not promise to give us some vague outline or just to talk about them. He said:
I shall present the changes that are consequential on the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I shall gladly do so at the earliest opportunity, for example, next Tuesday."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 December 1987; c. 138.]
The Minister promised to tell us what would be in the rules. That was clearly greeted with horror and panic by his ministerial colleagues and officials and he has chosen to be more economical with the truth than he intended. Instead of draft rules, he gave us meaningless gobbledegook. Instead of withdrawing his promise, which would have been the honest thing to do, he withdrew all meaning from his response to our questions.
It is inconceivable that the Government could have come forward with the Bill without a clear idea of what will be in the rules. It is inconceivable that the Minister has not had a final draft of the rules in his in-tray for weeks or even months and could not have made it available to us. It is an insult to the House that we still do not know what the rules will be. I warn Conservative Members that they do not yet know the full extent of what will happen as a result of the Bill.
Many people were convinced that the Government would be bound to withdraw clause 4, which does such damage to appeal rights. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) condemned the Bill as wholly unnecessary, denying the rights of British citizens who happen to be black or Asian and denying the right of family unity to men and women living in the country.
Nothing has changed, despite all our efforts in Committee. This remains a Bill which panders to prejudice and will heighten rather than reduce racial tension. That is a simple statement of fact, not an inflammatory comment. It remains a disgrace to a democratic Parliament. If any Conservative Members remain who still retain a concern for fairness, justice and humanity, they will surely feel honour bound to join us in voting against this nasty, squalid little Bill.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friends and I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said. However, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his maiden speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box. Although I disagreed with him, he showed a degree of vigour. He said that we had showed a degree of vigour in pushing through the Immigration Bill. Those of us who sat in Committee and spent six hours per clause on a modest

Bill may wonder about that vigour, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment none the less. I am sure that it was well-intended.
I do not intend to delay the House long, as we have gone over the arguments repetitively and incessantly and the House has still to deal with some important business. I wish only to make two or three minor points.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) for their interesting and wise speeches and for their support of our visit visa system and the way in which it is operating at present. They saw the wisdom of the system and the protection that it gives people. That was in contrast to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) who, typically, talked about a spider's web of controls. In the eight months that I have been Minister responsible for immigration, it is not the spider's web of controls that has struck me, but the superstructure of appeal upon appeal that we have created to protect people, to ensure that the overstayer is not sent away unfairly and that a person is not improperly deported.
When I took up my post at the Home Office, I was struck by the number of letters that I was required to sign, pointing out to Members of Parliament who had made representations to me that they or their predecessor had first written to me in 1983, for example, saying that the person about whom they were writing had originally come here for 30 days. He had then disappeared and had not been seen or found for three or four years. He then made an appeal to change the leave under which he was in this country. The case had gone to the adjudicator, then to the appellate tribunal and then to a Member of Parliament.
I am still writing frequent letters to hon. Members saying, "Your constituent first came here for 30 days, perhaps five years ago."

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way, as the House wishes to go on. With respect to my hon. Friend, I must get on.
I continue my letters to hon. Members by saying, "Your constituent has exhausted the system. It is time for him to go."

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Renton: That is how other countries see us. We have a superstructure of appeal. We are the only country in Europe, other than West Germany, to have an appeal system for those who are refused visit visas, yet we get no credit for that from the Opposition. That was reflected in the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and other Opposition Members rebuked us for the chaos at Lunar house. I have already described the measures that we are taking to deal with that. It must stick in the craw of Opposition Members that they voted against our changes in immigration rules three weeeks ago, when routine changes to those rules would have removed about 20 per cent. of the immigration cases from Lunar house. It is therefore impossible for people to be as hypocritical as Opposition Members and to chide us for those delays, yet vote against procedural changes that would deal with those problems.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Renton: I will not give way to my hon. Friend. I do not propose to give way to anyone, because there is important business ahead for the House.
We established one thing of which my hon. Friends who were not in the Chamber earlier should be aware. I asked the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West whether, if he was ever in office, he would cancel the visit visa system that we had introduced. He could not answer. We heard from the hon. Member for Leicester, East that he would cancel it and from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that he would cancel it, but the Opposition Front Bench does not know.
That emphasises the problem of the Opposition on immigration. They have told us that they would cancel the Immigration Act 1971 and the British Nationality Act 1981, but we never hear what they would put in their place. All they tell us is that they would do all this, and that only 1,000 more people would come into the country every year. What hypocrisy; what humbug—and they know it as well.
The Bill has been discussed enough. I support fully the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) who talked about the importance of racial harmony. I share that view. I believe that racial prejudice and racial discrimination are barbaric habits which have no place in a civilised or democratic society. Fair but firm immigration control is an essential precondition of racial harmony. The Bill makes modest but sensible changes. Our immigration controls will remain effective and flexible. That is in the interests of all people in Britain, whatever their ethnic origins. I commend the Bill wholeheartedly to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 214.

Division No. 183]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Aitken, Jonathan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alexander, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amos, Alan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arbuthnot, James
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, David
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butcher, Chris


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Couchman, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Body, Sir Richard
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh





Emery, Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lilley, Peter


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
McLoughlin, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Madel, David


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gregory, Conal
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Miller, Hal


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Mudd, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Heddle, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Page, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Paice, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patnick, Irvine


Holt, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Tim


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Janman, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rost, Peter


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Kilfedder, James
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knowles, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knox, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Latham, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Keith






Speller, Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walden, George


Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Ward, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Watts, John


Stokes, John
Wells, Bowen


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Sumberg, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilshire, David


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Woodcock, Mike


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Trippier, David



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Richard Ryder.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coleman, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cox, Tom


Ashdown, Paddy
Crowther, Stan


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cryer, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunningham, Dr John


Battle, John
Darling, Alistair


Beckett, Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Doran, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blair, Tony
Eadie, Alexander


Blunkett, David
Eastham, Ken


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bradley, Keith
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fearn, Ronald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fisher, Mark


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin


Buckley, George J.
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
George, Bruce


Clay, Bob
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mildred


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)





Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mullin, Chris


Grocott, Bruce
Murphy, Paul


Harman, Ms Harriet
Nellist, Dave


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Neill, Martin


Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Henderson, Doug
Parry, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Pendry, Tom


Holland, Stuart
Pike, Peter L.


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Geraint
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Richardson, Jo


Ingram, Adam
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Janner, Greville
Robertson, George


John, Brynmor
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rooker, Jeff


Lambie, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Leadbitter, Ted
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livsey, Richard
Short, Clare


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McGrady, Eddie
Steel, Rt Hon David


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steinberg, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McTaggart, Bob
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McWilliam, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Madden, Max
Turner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Vaz, Keith


Mallon, Seamus
Wall, Pat


Marek, Dr John
Walley, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wareing, Robert N.


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Martlew, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michael, Alun
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Winnick, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Worthington, Tony


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wray, Jimmy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliott
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Prevention of Terrorism

Mr. James Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I wonder whether it will be possible to save the time of the House. I understand that this matter has been referred to earlier in today's sitting and that Her Majesty's Government have already given an undertaking to another Government, namely the Irish Government, and disclosed to that Government the Home Secretary's intentions. I understand that that has been done during adjourned discussions, totalling about 10 hours. As I understand it, our debate tonight will last for one and a half hours. I do not know whether it will be possible to reveal to the House of Commons what was said in advance and the commitments that were given to the Government of another country.
My second point is brief. As the order is based on a Bill that extends mainly to Great Britain, which originated only in Great Britain and which now refers to international terrorism and not solely to Irish terrorism, I wonder whether someone in authority could tell us whether the Libyan or Iranian Government have had the same facility for consultation as the Irish Government.

Mr. Speaker: Those are patently questions that I cannot answer, but perhaps the Home Secretary can.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.
The effect of the order will be to renew the 1984 Act for a further 12 months from 22 March. The House will want to discuss several aspects of the order, but the main message should be clear enough, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will not dissent from it. There is still a threat of terrorism hanging over the citizens of this country, including Northern Ireland. That arises not just out of the affairs of Northern Ireland but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, from the middle east and the sub-continent. Our defences against that threat must not be weakened.
In Northern Ireland in 1987, 83 people were killed by Republican or Protestant paramilitary groups. The bomb outrage at Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday is still vivid in our minds. On the mainland in 1987, we thankfully had no successful attacks stemming from Irish republican extremism. However, I have no doubt that the Provisional IRA continues to wish and to plan further death and destruction among us. We must remain totally vigilant to defend ourselves against this threat.
We cannot ignore the threat which comes from international terrorist organisations. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the original Act did not cover international terrorism at all, but the world has changed for the worse since then. During 1987, there were six murders in Great Britain, which the police attributed to international terrorism. Those who died were three members of an Indian religious group at a service, two opponents of the Khomeini regime, and a Palestinian journalist.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act expires in March next year. Against the background that I have sketched, we need to consider what should take the place of that Act when it expires. It is right that I should say something about that this evening.
In April last year, I asked my noble and learned Friend Lord Colville of Culross, who conducted an independent review of the operation of the Act in 1986, to widen his net in 1987 and consider in greater depth the effectiveness of the legislation. His report was published in a White Paper in December. His scrutiny of the operation of the Act last year, which he concluded in January this year, was made available to Parliament on 8 February. I should like to express my gratitude, and, I believe, the gratitude of the House, for the effort and care that Lord Colville has devoted to these reports. He has taken a great deal of care to visit the ports and to consult many individuals and organisations who have an interest in the legislation.
I come immediately to what is undoubtedly Lord Colville's central recommendation. He says that he accepts the continuing need for legislation against terrorism. It would be foolish, he says, to pretend that terrorism in some form will not threaten lives and property in western countries for the foreseeable future, so he recommends that what he describes as the core controls enshrined in the legislation should no longer be subject to annual renewal, but should be enacted into fully permanent legislation, albeit with a continuation of the existing system of annual reviews.
We accept that the problem of terrorism in one form or another is not going to go away. We have to protect ourselves from terrorism from many sources. It is not just a matter of Irish terrorism, as the statistics show. None of the six deaths that occurred last year in Great Britain as a result of terrorist acts was the result of Irish terrorism.
We accept entirely the need for continuing legislation designed to prevent acts of terrorism in this country, but after careful reflection we do not believe that it would be right to interrupt the process by which Parliament is asked to take a positive decision each year to renew the provisions.
The BBC report today was inaccurate on one crucial point. In its hurry to get the story early the BBC got it wrong. We propose to return to the arrangement that existed when the Labour Government introduced the 1976 Act. The new Act that we shall propose will have no limit on its time span. It will not expire after five years, like the current 1984 Act under which this order is made. But the powers in the Act will have to be renewed each year. That is the arrangement that the Government of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was a member introduced in 1976, and in the light of experience we intend to return to it, I am sure with the support of the Labour party. Moreover, the powers will be renewable in whole or in part, and there is a good reason for that. Lord Colville suggested that the powers that relate especially to Irish terrorism — proscription and exclusion—should remain on a temporary basis.
By retaining the requirement for annual renewal in whole or in part, we meet that point by making it possible to drop any provisions that no longer appear necessary. Because of the exceptional nature of the powers contained in the Act, it is right that its operation should be scrutinised by an independent person, as the 1984 Act has been, and that arrangement, too, will continue.
I would like to deal with two points that I have heard made in the past 24 hours but to which I have not been able to respond, for obvious reasons. There is nothing in the criticisms that have been voiced about timing. One cannot insist on annual debates and then complain about timing when the time for the annual debate comes round. The order had to be debated at this time, and obviously the House requires that the Minister sets out his future intentions in the debate.
There is a more fundamental point. The people of Northern Ireland suffer more from terrorism than any of the rest of us. It is overwhelmingly in their interest, in that of the citizens of the Republic, and in that of all Irish men and women living this side of the water, that terrorism should be checked and then crushed. It is inevitable that the powers needed for that purpose should occasionally hear on innocent people, causing delay, inconvenience and controversy. But the powers are not aimed at those innocent people; they are aimed at their oppressors—the terrorists.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd: I should like to get on. It is a short debate and I am afraid that I have a bit to say.
Lord Colville points out — and I remember vividly from my time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the resentment that use of these powers can produce. I would be delighted if they could be safely removed, but safely is the key word. While they exist, they must be carefully and intelligently used; and we must take every opportunity to prove—as we can—that they are there for the protection and not the oppression of the citizen.
We intend, in replacing the current Act, to implement Lord Colville's recommendation that the principal port powers, which are now in the order and the comparable Northern Ireland order, should be incorporated into primary legislation. Powers given to the police at ports — notably on examination and detention — are important, and, as with similar ones in the Immigration Act 1971, we now think that they deserve full consideration by Parliament and a place on the face of the Act.
We have considered Lord Colville's recommendation that the police powers at ports should be extended to cover ports handling traffic outside the common travel area. Those ports are covered by controls provided by the Immigration Act 1971, and we are not at present convinced that there is a case for extending police powers at those ports.
The House will have noticed Lord Colville's endorsement of the value of the powers in the prevention of terrorism legislation for the arrest and detention, for up to seven days if necessary, of people suspected of involvement in terrorist acts. In England and Wales, detention in police custody is subject to procedures laid down in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the codes of practice issued under it. Some of the requirements apply, with modifications, to detentions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; others are expressly disapplied.
I see force in the changes proposed by Lord Colville to bring procedures for those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act closer to those for people detained under

ordinary police powers, as long as the police investigation is not jeopardised, and we are examining the feasibility of that.
When Lord Colville's report was published before Christmas, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced straight away that we could not accept the recommendation that the power of exclusion should be abolished. We thought hard about that, but we did not believe it would be helpful to the House or anyone else for there to be any uncertainty on our views. Now is not the right time to give up that power. It is used sparingly. I look at every application with care and I refused, in the past year, three applications for orders from the police. I made 17 orders in respect of people who had previously been excluded, but 19 orders were not replaced when they expired. The total of exclusion orders in force at the end of 1987 was 111 in Great Britain and 23 in Northern Ireland, which is a slight rise on the previous year.
I dislike the idea of the use of Executive power to inhibit free movement of a person within his own country. I believe that other hon. Members, if confronted, case by case, with the information that is put in front of me as to the activities and intentions of these individuals would agree with me that the restrictions placed on their freedom of movement is justified to save lives, which is what the use of the power is about. Under section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, it is an offence to make available, to invite others to do so, or to receive, funds to be used in connection with Northern Irish terrorism.

Mr. Clive Soley: Understandably, the Home Secretary has praised Lord Colville. Will he bear in mind the fact that Lord Colville described exclusion orders as being similar to internal exile, which is a point that I have debated with the Home Secretary? Does he accept what Lord Colville recommended that it is undesirable for a politician, however senior, to have the power of exclusion which is not, in the first instance, overseen by a court of law?

Mr. Hurd: It is undesirable, but I simply repeat the point that I made when I explained why I disagree with Lord Colville's recommendation on this point. If the hon. Gentleman—who is a sensible person—were confronted with the facts that are laid before me in these applications, he would not accept all of them, and I do not accept all of them. They need careful probing, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have three completely independent advisers to advise me on these matters. Nevertheless, I believe that, for the time being, with the facts as they are today, it would be putting lives in jeopardy if we were to abandon that power of exclusion. Therefore, I believe that it should be used sparingly and carefully for the protection of citizens, as it is today.
Under section 10, as I was saying, it is an offence to make available or invite others to do so or to receive funds to be used in connection with Northern Irish terrorism. Lord Colville believes that the section could be useful in relation to international terrorism because there is evidence of fund raising by international terrorist groups in this country, to purchase arms and explosives. This is difficult. We agree with Lord Colville that it is wrong that contributions could be made in this country to international terrorist organisations and not be caught by our anti-terrorism legislation, and we are considering his proposals carefully.
We have some further work to do, but, in principle, the points I have outlined will be incorporated in the Bill which we shall introduce to replace the present Act when it expires in 1989. We mean to accept a number of other useful recommendations made by Lord Colville. They will be drawn to the attention of the police in a circular of guidance.
We are debating tonight the continuance for one more year of the powers in the present Act. It would be a great strength if the House could unite behind this proposal — and a great shame if it could not.
I know that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench would, if they were sitting on the Government Benches now, try to find a way—contrary to what they announced today—of keeping a Prevention of Terrorism Act alive. Of course they would: they would have to. The right hon. Gentleman has a particular difficulty because it was he, in 1982, who led the Opposition's drift away from reality into irresponsibility. He was a Minister when the Act was passed. He did not vote against it till 1982. If he now claims to be leading his party back towards responsibility, he cannot vote against the order tonight. It is a simple and straightforward test.
All the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman is making to get on better terms with the police and to try to repair the damage done by his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will be futile if he fails this test. He must decide whether to stand up to the Left wing, which forced him to make that lamentable change in 1982. If he does not—if he cannot—do that, he will show again that the Opposition do not have the backbone to deal with these matters. Until they recover it, they will not be taken seriously as an alternative Government.
In the previous debates, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has tried to cover himself by two lines of argument. The Opposition argue — this is a serious argument — that the Act should be scrapped as ineffective because terrorist incidents still happen; but that argument could be used about the whole of the criminal law. Their second point is that by skilful use of other pieces of legislation — this is the right hon. Gentleman's particular point — such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or the Immigration Act 1971, we could achieve the same ends. That is simply not true, as Lord Colville's report on the operation of the Act in 1987 amply showed.

Mr. Graham Allen: We have heard a great deal of assertion tonight about the PTA—and a fair bit of divergence, too. When will the right hon. Gentleman give us some evidence about activity under the PTA, rather than diversionary tactics?

Mr. Hurd: Exactly now. It was a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He asks whether the PTA helps to prevent acts of terrorism and bring terrorists to justice. Let us look at the figures in Lord Colville's report. Anyone who doubts that we need the Act should be convinced by 27 charges of murder in Northern Ireland last year alone, some connected with the deaths of members of the security forces. But I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that figures, however convincing, do

not convey the complete picture. I can give the House some details which are no longer subject to the restraint of prejudicing court procedures.
The conviction late last year of a leading member of the International Sikh Youth Federation, who had organised some shooting of prominent moderate Sikhs in Great Britain, shows the extent of the threat against the Sikh community in this country and the value of the prevention of terrorism legislation. That man—that murderer—had been detained under section 12 of the Act after his fingerprints had been found in a car thought to have been used in the attacks, on a plastic bag used to contain a shotgun used in one of the attacks. Without the length of detention possible under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the opportunities that that gave for further inquiries, examination of his correspondence, and further questioning, it might well have not been possible to bring that man to justice.

Ms. Short: The Secretary of State's argument does not stand. He tells us that the man's fingerprints were found in the car. Therefore, he could have been incriminated under existing criminal law. The Secretary of State uses a case badly to make his argument. That man could have been arrested and charged under existing criminal law, and the PTA was not needed.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is wrong. In that particular case I allowed detention, after careful examination, for up to six days under the powers of the PTA. Under ordinary law, I would have been unable to do so and, in all probability, that terrorist would not have been brought to justice. [Interruption.] I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Members do not like it when anecdotes are produced to demonstrate the crucial value of the powers of the PTA.
Lord Colville described in his report the long and complex investigation in Scotland regarding firearms and explosives apparently destined for use by a Loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland, which culminated in the conviction of six men on firearms charges. Those men were arrested under the PTA during 1986, but their trial took place in 1987. The simultaneous investigations required by the police in several other areas could not have not taken place successfully unless the powers in the PTA had been used. That is another example to demonstrate that those exceptional powers are necessary to bring would-be terrorists to justice.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose—

Mr. Hurd: No, I have given way sufficiently. I have been asked for evidence and I have given evidence.
It is impossible to test the value of the Act simply by the changes brought. Last year, I noted how the Act had been used in 1986 to forestall—that is the key word—terrorism by a group of the Abu Nidhal gang, whom I deported. This year, a man suspected of working for the Libyan Government as an intelligence officer was likewise deported. Without the powers in the Act, it would have been impossible to arrest and deport that man.
If Opposition Members are arguing that we should wait until a crime has been committed and there are corpses on the streets—[Interruption.] That is what is at issue. We are discussing a preventive measure, and what it does is prevent terrorism and save lives.
To save lives and protect our citizens, I ask the House to give its wholehearted support to the continuation of the


powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The reports by Lord Colville should be a reassurance that those powers are not abused or over-used. They are exercised carefully and conscientiously, with regard to the impact on the liberty and rights of the individual. We are clear that those powers must continue to remain throughout the United Kingdom if we are to conduct and succeed in a serious and sustained fight against terrorism.
I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: As a result of events yesterday and this morning, the debate is bound to be dominated by a discussion of the Home Secretary's proposals for permanent legislation.
In this 90 minutes we should be discussing the application of the PTA over the next year. Future plans should have been announced to the House at half past 3 one afternoon. They should not have been, first, incompetently leaked to the BBC yesterday and then described all morning to journalists by a spokesman from No. 10 Downing street. That task having been completed, the plans were actually reported to the House this evening.
The Home Secretary having reported to the House his intention to move to permanent legislation, it is worth our reminding him and the House about what he now proposes as a full-time, permanent feature of British law — a law which began, as Hansard will show, as a reaction to an immediate emergency, a crisis and a tragedy. It would not have been passed through the House if hon. Members had thought that it would ever become a permanent feature on the statute book.
The Home Secretary is recommending permanent legislation which would enable men and women to be held for up to seven days without charge, denied access to solicitors and to be subject to what Lord Colville, the Home Secretary's own choice of monitor of the Act, calls internal exile. It is worth noting from Lord Colville's report that the vast majority of men and women who were arrested without charge, held for seven days and denied the right of access to a solicitor were innocent under the law.
In 1987, a total of 113 men and women were detained on suspicion of what Lord Colville's report calls Northern Ireland terrorism. Only 10 of them were charged. We do not know how many of them were convicted, but let us assume that all 10 of them were convicted. The other 103 were arrested and imprisoned, but were guilty of no offence under the law.
If Conservative Members are no more able than the Home Secretary to recognise the enormity of the offence against those 103 people, I hope that at least they will be able to understand the bonus that such actions provides for terrorists who want to argue that the British Government in Westminster are callous about the way in which Irish people coming into Britain are treated, and are unconcerned about the real rule of law and the real protection of civil liberties.
Terrorism in Northern Ireland will be defeated only when the overwhelming law-abiding majority are convinced that they must repudiate, reject and expose the terrorists. The announcement today that the Act is to be permanent, the inept timing and the nature of the announcement and the extraordinary performance of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on television trying to suggest that there is to be no permanent legislation are

bound to play into the hands of the IRA propaganda machine. It will also prejudice the resumption of the proper and necessary co-operation between London and Dublin.
This morning, Government spokesmen describing the Act, and correcting the errors of yesterday, have been saying that the changes are not as profound as they may appear to critics of the proposals. I am not surprised. Had the Government intended to prejudice Anglo-Irish relations during the past month, they would hardly have behaved differently.
It began with the Government's refusal to prosecute over the Stalker-Sampson inquiry. It continued with the Attorney-General's unwillingness or inability to provide the information necessary for extradition. Now there is the ineptitude of today's announcement, or yesterday's leak, about the PTA.
I shall make my position absolutely clear. As part of their briefing, Government spokesmen spoke about the Opposition being soft on terrorism. I am not prepared to take that from a Government who gave a safe passage out of this country to the murderers of WPC Fletcher rather than have a row with Libya.
The truth about the Opposition's attitude to terrorism was described with a good deal more grace by the Home Secretary last year in a similar debate. He said:
No one in this House disagrees about the distinctive evil of terrorism
That is indisputably true. He went on:
The argument in the House begins when we consider whether special powers are needed by the police and the Government in dealing with terrorism."—[Official Report, 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 263.]
But it is only the beginning of the truth, for our contention is not merely that the powers of the PTA are unnecessary or even inappropriate to a free society, true though that contention is. We insist that the operation, perhaps even the existence, of the PTA is a hindrance and a handicap in the fight against terrorism, certainly in relation to Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Cash: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I will give way on this one occasion because this is a 90-minute debate, the Home Secretary took 25 minutes and I want to be brief.

Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when Labour Members were in power, they managed to detain 4,524 people in five years under this Act whereas in the eight years during which we have been dealing with these matters the number has been only 1,947? That makes clear the reality of the situation and totally contradicts the right hon. Gentleman's position.

Mr. Hattersley: That does not even touch on the effects that the PTA is having on everything the Home Secretary claims he want to do. The Act must be judged by its effects on terrorism in Northern Ireland and our success in combating it. The Home Secretary now wants to broaden its scope and tries to defend that action by saying that we live in an age of international terrorism. But everybody knows that this measure was introduced to deal explicity with the Northern Ireland situation as an immediate and temporary expedient and necessity. Without the tragedy of Northern Ireland—indeed, without the specific tragedy of the Birmingham pub bombings—the Act would never have been passed.
The PTA stands or falls by the success it provides in combating, or helping to combat, terrorism in Northern Ireland. It falls, in our view, because of the effect it has on Irish opinion, and the main area where Irish opinion is now being prejudiced are exclusion orders.
It is no good the Home Secretary offering his thanks to Lord Colville, saying how full of wisdom his report is and then, in some cavalier fashion — unsubstantiated and unjustified — dismissing what Lord Colville says about exclusion orders. And it is not only Lord Colville. Sir Cyril Philips, who did the monitoring operation the year before, also—both men working from different bases—came to the same conclusion that exclusion orders should be ended in one form or another.
Exclusion orders prejudice opinion in Northern Ireland and are clearly intended to deal with Northern Ireland alone. The idea that terrorists can be excluded from the mainland and required to live in the six counties is a view of Northern Ireland which is wholly inconsistent with the principle that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and must be treated in exactly the same way as the United Kingdom. We do not send terrorists on exclusion orders to Chelmsford, Cardiff, Glasgow or Guildford. If we are to treat Northern Ireland as the repository for terrorists, we must be encouraging terrorism there and the IRA propaganda machine.
Our main objection, in principle and in practice, is to what the Act provides by way of power of detention. The Home Secretary argued last year, and he argued again tonight, that it was necessary to have the power to prevent horrors before they happened — the pre-emption argument. The first example he gave to justify that seemed extraordinary. The crime had already been committed. I refer to the Sikh bombing and murder. The Home Secretary mentioned a motor car which the police had taken into their care, which they knew had been used when the murder had been committed, and on which were found fingerprints of the man who was eventually convicted.
Is the Home Secretary really saying that that man could not have been arrested and prosecuted without the existence of this Act? I will give way at once to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to answer my next question. What happens when cars are used in the commission of murders which are not associated with terrorism and when fingerprints are found on those cars? Do we never catch and convict the criminals in such cases? Of course, in that circumstance the normal law and the normal powers could be used. We must therefore ask the question that is constantly asked by Opposition Members but is never answered: what is the real purpose of, and what is the real evidence that warrants, this form of detention?
I ask the Home Secretary questions which are not intended to be rhetorical. Could not the men found in the garden of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have been arrested under normal criminal law? Could not the retired doctor from my constituency who was held under the PTA and eventually charged and acquitted on suspicion of explosives offences have been held under criminal law? The police told me when I asked them that the PTA was more convenient. It does not seem to me that convenience justifies abandonment of the rules of arrest and detention which are expected in a free society.
The Home Secretary's excuse can hardly apply to the extension of detention orders, as he seemed to argue. Let me read to him a passage from Lord Colville's report. Paragraph 36 says:
the reasons adduced by the police for an extension included a few alibi enquiries, some requests for an identity parade and a substantial number of forensic investigations. Broadly, however, the application was based on suspicion of involvement in a particular crime.
All that is the stuff of which normal criminal charges and investigations are made, and all that should have been dealt with in the normal way, not least because 103 of the 110 men and women who were treated in this draconian fashion — the word used by the Home Secretary who introduced the Act when it first came on the statute book —were subsequently found to be innocent.
We are left with the irresistible suspicion that the purpose of detention is to hold for 48 hours or seven days men and women who have committed no offence, but are thought to possess information of value to the police. That suspicion is intensified by the Government's refusal to accept Lord Colville's proposal that extensions of detention should be determined not by the Home Secretary but by the courts, for were the extension of detention to be determined by the courts much better reasons would have to be brought forward. They would certainly have to be better than those that the Home Secretary has provided to the House.
Detention allows a man or woman to be held without the normal safeguards of full custody sheets and access to a solicitor within 36 hours. That may be a reason for detention, but it is a thoroughly bad reason to be brought forward in a free society — so bad that the Home Secretary does not even advance it when he attempts to defend his proposition.
The way in which the Home Secretary has advanced his proposition is not calculated to encourage all-party support for the campaign in Northern Ireland. Indeed, apart from the moments of cheap abuse, the Home Secretary defended his views simply by assertion—not by justification, not by evidence, but just by assertion. He announced that it was not the right time to end exclusion. He announced that he was not convinced that changes were necessary. He announced that we were nevertheless required to maintain these powers, just as if the Home Secretary's word on these matters was enough. It is indeed a docile, supine, craven House of Commons that is prepared to accept such a curtailment and reduction of civil liberties on the unsubstantiated word of a Minister alone.
I am not prepared to do it, and that is why I shall vote against the order.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Because this is a brief debate, I intend to be extremely brief. I rise because last Sunday I had the privilege of being present in St. Anne's cathederal, Belfast, when the Royal Ulster Constabulary dedicated a window to the memory of some 252 police officers who had been murdered over the past 10 years in that part of the United Kingdom. At the end of the service, at which clergymen of all denominations spoke, I walked out in the company of more than 800 widows and children of those officers. No one who could mingle with the widows and children of those police officers could be in any doubt about the terrible carnage


that is wreaked upon the innocent by terrorists in Northern Ireland. As I met those widows and children, I felt immensely humble.
It was quite clear, as I discussed the debate that would take place in the House tonight, that the overwhelming majority of those who suffer from the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland would not forgive us if we did not provide to the police service in Northern Ireland and in this country every means that we can to prevent such horrors from taking place. It is against that background that I make my judgment of whether the legislation introduced by a Labour Government and continued by successive Governments should or should not remain a part of our law.
Lord Colville, like many other independent persons, came to the conclusion—

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to imply that policemen always seem to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of crimes of terrorism? Should the hon. Gentleman not declare his interest before he starts, and declare himself as a paid servant of the police?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member should declare his interest, but a breach of order has not been committed so far.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: If it is necessary for me to declare my interest, I do so with pride, but there can be few hon. Members who have any doubt about it. The issue is very simple: does the House owe to the security services and the police the provision of legislation to help them to defend the innocent?

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member wishes to talk about the police and the valuable role that they perform in Northern Ireland, would he not be better advised to book a Committee Room when we are talking about the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

Madam Deputy Speaker: This is a very short debate and there is no point in wasting time by raising bogus points of order.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The police service is in no doubt that it could not effectively safeguard the people of the country against the very substantial increase in terrorism that may take place if the Act were not available to them. I believe that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has some experience as a Home Office Minister—

Mr. Hattersley: indicated dissent

Sir Eldon Griffiths: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman confirms what I was about to say which is that, lacking experience as a Home Office Minister, it is all the more egregious that he should regard his judgment as superior to that of those who have to risk their lives to undertake our protection. The Act has been crucial in the fight against terrorism. In June 1985 the Act enabled the police to prevent an IRA bombing campaign of British resorts and to bring charges in connection with the Brighton bombing of 1984. In June 1986 the leaders of the Provisional IRA murder gang involved in that atrocity were sent to prison for life, and that could not have happened without the legislation.
I believe that the Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we need legislation that will assist the police and

the security services, not simply in investigating terrorism, but in preventing it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is entirely right to commend the order to the House, and it will be disgraceful if the Opposition divide against it.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has just misled the House. I say so in all seriousness—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order? Time is passing and this is an important debate.

Mr. Bermingham: If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds wants to quote anything about the Brighton bombing case and the summer bombing campaign, the least he could do is to read the papers.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument and not a point of order.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Having read the report of Lord Colville, I reluctantly conclude that we are justified in continuing the exceptional response to the grave problem of terrorism for another year, but I say that with great misgivings.
I hope that hon. Members will listen to those misgivings because they might well agree with them. First, as the Home Secretary will no doubt recognise, the legislation is contrary to the European convention on human rights. Secondly, the continuation of exclusion orders, in the face of the views of Lord Colville and Sir Cyril Philips, serves no useful purpose except to fuel the IRA propaganda machine in future. Thirdly, it is regretable that we should be considering the continuation of the Act against the continuing background of the Diplock courts, without any announcement from the Home Secretary of any modification of the arrangements in those courts. Press speculation, no doubt fuelled by the Government, led us to believe that we might hear something about that tonight.
Fourthly, it is regrettable that we have not yet heard fom the Government that some simple measures recommended by Lord Colville, which would further ensure the fair treatment of prisoners in police stations, have not yet been brought into effect.
The way in which the future of the Act has been dealt with tonight is astonishing. It is part of a chapter of lamentable clumsiness which had led to a total breakdown of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The announcement of the introduction of permanent legislation next year has probably done more to worsen Anglo-Irish relations than any other declarations or activities of the past few weeks. It is piled upon what happened, or, rather, did not happen, to the Stalker-Sampson report; and upon a regrettable refusal so far by the Government to provide a proper opportunity to debate relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The Dail is to have that opportunity tomorrow, but we are to be deprived of such an opportunity, apparently for some time to come.
The announcement tonight of permanent legislation will have a regrettable effect on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It will affect, within our own jurisdiction, law,


justice and security. It will affect the operation of extradition and the security of the realm. The Government's proposal is a constitutional nightmare. It is politically foolish and, further to the decisions not to prosecute in the shoot-to-kill cases or to insist upon a change of chief officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the smothering of the Stalker-Sampson affair, must sadden our friends in Ireland as much as it delights our common enemies—the gunmen and the terrorists.
We must not tolerate a permanent and exceptional removal of civil liberties. No democratic British Government should countenance that. It is the rights and freedoms of the citizen which should be permanent. Any derogation from them should be only temporary. The European convention on human rights, to which we are a signatory, makes it clear that suspension of civil rights for reasons of the state can be only by exception. The rule must be personal freedom.
Anti-terrorist legislation is, unfortunately, needed in the short term, but we believe that the time has come to develop it within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement — not outside the framework of that agreement and in what appears to be a clumsy, though not deliberate, attempt to destroy it.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: I have nearly finished my speech, so I shall not give way. Many other hon. Members wish to speak.
We believe that there should be joint and simultaneous enactment by the Dail and this Parliament of new antiterrorist legislation. That is the constructive way forward, that is the way in which anti-terrorist legislation can be made to stick and that is the way in which terrorism can be defeated.

Mr. David Ashby: When the principal Bill was first in Committee it was known as the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, but several Opposition Members, together with some of my hon. Friends and I, insisted that the words "(Temporary Provisions)" should be inserted in the title. I remember well the reasons for the inclusion of those words.
The Act provides the police with exceptional powers. No state should normally take the powers that have been amply set out in this debate. They include the power to detain for seven days. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides for detention for only four days. Many hon. Members were very concerned about that power to detain, but under this Act a person can be detained for a further three days.
The Act includes the power to hold and interrogate and to hold simply for the purpose of gathering information. The Act also includes the power to detain people in Northern Ireland, thereby preventing them from travelling to the mainland. They are exceptional powers. Therefore, it was necessary to include the words "(Temporary Provisions)" in the title of the Act.
I welcome an annual opportunity to debate such exceptional powers. It is necessary to examine every year the effect of the Act, what is happening in Northern Ireland and whether the Act ought to be renewed. Its renewal should never be automatic. As parliamentary time

is limited, there cannot be a requirement to renew the Act every five years, but there must be an order every year, thus providing an opportunity for debate. Therefore, I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
For the reasons that were given by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I believe that it is right to renew the order. However, I say that only after a careful examination of the current situation. I give notice that next year I shall not automatically vote for the renewal of the Act. I shall consider its effect very carefully. Only after the most careful consideration shall I be prepared to vote for its renewal, because of the exceptional powers that it contains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has given figures that prove that the Act has been successful, but the fight against terrorism has much further to go. Nevertheless, I believe that the Act cannot remain on the statute book for ever and I look forward to the end of it.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: It is tragic that the debate is taking place in the shadow of the events of the past three weeks. Ringing in all our ears must be those prophetic words of Sir John Hermon, at his first meeting with John Stalker, when he said, "You are in a jungle now." The jungle state has been contributed to, not just by the situation in Northern Ireland, but by the decision announced on the Floor of the House, which will allow those charged with enforcing the law to undermine the law and which has debased the integrity of the whole process of justice in Northern Ireland in the eyes of the people who have had to watch various incidents.
The Government have played by the ground rules which were laid down by Sir John Hermon or the intelligence services. Translated into graffiti, with all the legal niceties stripped away, the decision could be written on a wall as, "Jungle rule, OK." It is against that background that we must examine the two crucial issues. I shall not deal with the timing of the announcement, except to say that it was grossly insensitive, to put it mildly.
The proposed permanency is something that I find abhorrent, like most of what is in the legislation. To understand the context, we must consider the rake's progress in trying to get a solution to the Northern Irish problem. A security solution has been tried in all shapes and forms for 20 years. A new brigade has just been formed, and there is a new border zone. Some people have compared it to the Gaza strip. I live in it, so I will not make that comparison. In their thinking the Government seem to be moving inexorably towards a futile military solution, but there is no such solution.
The question must be asked: what is the objective? Is it to defeat terrorism, or is it to bring peace? The Government have to address that question. What is the priority? Is it to bring peace to Northern Ireland or to Ireland, or is it to try to gain a futile victory? Let there be no mistake about it. The present position can go on for another 20 years, with the military approach by the Government and by all the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.
The second fundamental question is: can amending or bending the law lead to a solution? Let us look at the rake's progress on that. We have had internment without trial, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978,


the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, the Diplock courts, the brutal interrogation techniques verified by Lord Justice Bennett and supergrass trials. We have had all these abuses of the law, but, 20 years on, none of them has ended terrorism. This legislation, whether permanent or temporary, will not end violence.
Everything has been tried militarily and legally. The one solution that has not yet been tried is that of giving the people of Northern Ireland a proper system of justice that every person can identify with, have confidence in and defend if the need arises. That is the way to prevent terrorism and end violence. That is the way to create peace.
I refer hon. Members to the informed view expressed by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), when he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. In a speech in Munich he said that oppressive policies, without regard to moderation, civilisation and restraint, could feed terrorism. That is what is happening because of the emergency provisions legislation. Paramilitarists can live with repression. Indeed, they promote and welcome it. They cannot live with the highest standards of justice, because that is what they fear most. Since 1974, they have never been faced with that prospect from a Government operating from this House.
Once the order becomes permanent, it will be a vote of no confidence in the prospect of obtaining stability, a proper system of justice or prospects for peace in Northern Ireland. It is saying that there is no chance of stability proper justice or peace.
When Lord Jenkins, as he now is, was Secretary of State for the Home Department and he introduced this legislation, he said that it was unprecedented in peacetime. It is draconian legislation. To have it as a temporary provision is bad enough, but to enshrine it permanently is a monstrous act for the people of Britain, and especially for the people in Northern Ireland.
Powers of detention could be rewritten. The legislation is already used as a trawl for intelligence information. The detention figures, not confining their application to Britain, and the application of sections 11 and 13 in Northern Ireland, are astounding. Is anyone telling me, or anyone who lives in Northern Ireland, that this legislation is not used to trawl for intelligence?
Let me give as an example an incident that occurred three weeks ago A lady in my constituency, who was six months pregnant, was taken from her home by helicopter at 6.30 in the morning to a holding centre and questioned for a day and a half. The questioning was not about herself and her involvement, but about people with whom she might have had contact.

Mr. Robert Parry: My hon. Friend will be aware that over many years thousands of men and women have had their fingerprints taken, and although they are not found guilty of any terrorism, their fingerprints are still kept on file. Is that not disgraceful, and should not those fingerprints be destroyed?

Mr. Mallon: That may cause considerable concern in Britain, but I can assure my hon. Friend that in my constituency it would be the least of people's worries.
I have two further points to make. Unless precautions are taken when people are held in detention, there will be a repeat of the situation where a Mr. Gillan from Belfast was released from custody on the direction of the court

because of his maltreatment in detention. Video cameras and tape recorders were introduced to put a stop to that, but they have not done so. This matter must be considered most carefully.
There is no statutory provison to cover the use of force by members of the security forces in Northern Ireland, apart from a provision in the Criminal Law Act 1967. There is nothing that the public have a right to know about, apart from that provision. Is that important? I suggest that it is very important when we realise that, between 1969 and 1986, 166 people were killed by members of the security forces. None of those people was involved in violence or paramilitary groupings. That is a remarkable omission from any form of legislation.
Until a uniform code of conduct and a set of rules are enshrined in legislation for both the police and the Army, there will be more Stalker affairs, and more people will be killed in dubious circumstances. This kind of incident will poison relationships, not just between the parties in the House, but between people in Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between the Republic and Britain.
It may seen strange to quote the words of Lord Denning after these past three weeks, but I shall risk it. I ask that the Government remember these words at all times. He said: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you."

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The fight against terrorism is an extraordinary business, and extraordinary solutions are required to deal with it. No Conservative Member would welcome the use of powers of this kind unless it was necessary, but necessary it is. Let me say to my right hon. Friend that one of the primary duties of a Government is to protect the citizens of this country. That is what he must do, and in doing so he takes on these necessary powers.
The lives of British people, not only in Northern Irleland but on the mainland, are in the hands of the police and the Home Office. It is their responsibility to ensure that our streets are safe and our people properly protected. We are dealing not only with international terrorism, or only with domestic terrorism, but with a mixture: the IRA, the Libyans, the Iranians—all kinds of terrorists who come to this country bearing its people no good will. Those are the people whom we must exclude, and this Bill will exclude them.
Let me say to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that it is much better for 103 people to spend a week in custody than for hundreds of British people to die on our streets because we do not look into things properly. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will agree with that. It does not do for the right hon. Gentleman to go on about the police in the way that he has done. That is at the root of it—the Opposition's paranoia about the powers granted to the police in this country. The police are the defenders of our society. I have sat in the House for four years and listened, and there is no doubt that the Opposition are paranoid about the powers of the police, and about giving them any further powers.

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: I will not give way.
No one who has been in the House for the last few years and who has seen the incident at Heathrow over the E1-A1 jet, the Brighton bombing, Enniskillen, the Eksund incident and the recent uncovering of arms caches in Northern Ireland could believe that this measure is inappropriate. It is an essential tool of preventive policing, and an essential tool in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: No, I shall not give way.
I say to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that I am surprised at him in particular. I say to the House that the public will not understand, if the Opposition vote against the order, their cavalier attitude towards the safety of the people of this country, of which they ought to be thoroughly ashamed.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The melancholy annual renewal of this legislation suggests that the Conservative party has exactly the same attitude as it did when the Act was first made law. Some of us fought against it on that day, and have continued to do so. It caused us much personal misery and trouble, but we did it for two reasons: because we were convinced that it would not work, and because we were convinced that it was profoundly unjust and would not do what it was intended to do. We are renewing it now against the background of a series of events which have been enumerated during the debate, and which, tied together, almost look like a provocation of the Irish people and the Irish Government.
We know that Sir John Hermon and the Government together have prevented justice from being done to the people who carried out those shootings. It is no good the Government hiding behind the Director of Public Prosecutions: it is the Government who are intervening in the law. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) should shut up. He never came here for debates about Ireland until he was paid for it. He was not here when we were fighting the struggle a long time ago, and he would not be now—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Flannery: I shall not give way.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is normally called first on such matters and he usually takes about half an hour out of a one-and-a-half-hour debate. The fact that he was told off means that we have been subjected to less than usual.
In 1974 the Act was passed against a background of fear and terror among our people. Many went along with it. Enniskillen is at the back of the order. Fear is causing a kind of semi-lynch law approach. People know that the Act is not working. Thousands of innocent people who have been fingerprinted are on the list.[Interruption.] I am told that it is much viler than that over there. People here should realise what the people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic are going through.
The Act's main provisions are draconian in the extreme. They include proscription of organisations that appear to be involved in political violence relating to

Northern Ireland; exclusion from Britain — what a terrible thing it is when the entire family is worried about people who have never been tried because there is no trial; arrest and detention for up to seven days without charge. The Home Secretary said that he needed that provision to keep somebody in for six days. He could keep somebody in for six days because some people are in gaol for six months, never mind six days. The right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
The Act also includes exclusion—people are not even told the evidence against them or who is giving the evidence. There is no right of silence—people are forced to answer questions about other individuals. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, one reason for the Act is to collect knowledge and intelligence and to force people to answer. They do not have the right to silence or any opportunity to cross-examine their accusers and there is no form of trial or appeal.
It is a disgraceful Act and should be taken off the statute book altogether. It is impossible for anyone to make representations on behalf of the accused, as no form of charges has ever been laid. The Act is draconian and creates terrorism. It is a "production of terrorism" Act. If Conservative Members do not know that, they should ask themselves a simple question. When anybody is unjustly treated by the Act—the Irish people have millions of relatives in the United States—do those Conservative Members not realise that NorAid is immediately strengthened to get funds for the IRA? Among other things, that is one result of the Act.
The Act has not stopped the bombings and the shootings; they still go on. Therefore, the Act aggravates a difficult situation, produces misery, and violates the conscience of any honourable individual. The Conservative party should be ashamed of the sickening unanimity on the Government Benches. Conservative Members uphold the Act year after year when innocent people are being terrorised. People who have never bothered to go to Ireland in their lives go there with the cameras on them, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds did yesterday, as we all saw. What does he know about it? He only comes here to defend the police.
The Irish community in this country and in Northern Ireland are frightened of the Act. They all have relatives who have been affected by it. They know that something wrong is being done and have to explain why somebody has suddenly gone missing when they do not know why that person has gone missing.
Added to the Diplock courts, the Act is an outrage against the people in our country who are of Irish background. Tonight we should withdraw this vile Act instead of renewing it in this melancholy and sickening way as we do annually—and as, at one time, we did every six months. Those of us who have continually fought against it are happy and proud that we have done so, because it is a sickening wrong against innocent people, and it should go.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) began his speech by saying that the order would not end violence. He knows that I am a strong supporter of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but the reality is that it does and can prevent violence and terrorism.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said that innocent people are being terrorised in this country as a result of the Act and the orders. In reality, we can help to prevent the people of this country from being terrorised only by provisions such as this. That is why I support the Act and the order.
It is always difficult to strike a balance when one is dealing with fundamental liberties. It is always difficult to determine on which side of the equation to come down in deciding whether to introduce or continue powers such as these. As I pointed out in an intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when the Labour Government were faced with having to deal with the problem, they detained many thousands more people than have been detained by this Government under the provisions of the same Act. As T. S. Eliot once said, humankind cannot bear very much in the way of reality, and the hon. Member for Hillsborough illustrates that point very clearly. The provisions are needed to protect the citizens of this country, of Northern Ireland, and, if I may say so, of southern Ireland. Terrorism breeds terrorism and terrorism breeds violence and unless one prevents it, it feeds like a canker upon itself. That is precisely why these powers are needed.

Mr. Mallon: They have not prevented terrorism for 20 years.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman says that the provisions have not prevented the violence from escalating for 20 years. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed Irish questions on many occasions. He knows that this position has pertained not for 20 or even for 40 years but for 400 years. I support the Anglo-Irish Agreement because its provisions are necessary, as are the powers in the Act. Only by these powers can we maintain the necessary degree of prevention.

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer too. Does he not understand that the provisions of the Act apply only after arrest? The Act does nothing before a person has been arrested; it negates the normal criminal law powers after arrest. Will the hon. Gentleman please explain to the House how that helps to prevent terrorism?

Mr. Cash: As usual, the hon. Gentleman takes the nice legal point when we are dealing with something fundamental to the prevention of terrorism in this country. The fundamental reason why the Act and the orders are required is that they prevent terrorism.

Mr. Bermingham: How?

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is making absolutely no impact on the argument. The Act and the orders made under it must be maintained at all costs.

Mr. Hattersley: I have only two points to make before I leave to the Under-Secretary the time that remains in this brief debate. It seems to me that the error committed by the Government, which tonight is more intellectual than political, was most eloquently demonstrated by the hon. Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash). They seem to believe that by merely reiterating the fact that terrorism exists they can justify the existence of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. They do not seem to realise that to justify

such draconian powers they have to relate the Act to terrorism and begin to show that it is in some way a deterrent.
My second point concerns the way in which the debate has been conducted. I think that the whole House will agree that to debate this matter of fundamental civil liberties for an hour and a half late at night is wholly unsatisfactory. It is not simply the continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act: it is more the permanence of that Act in future, the underlying concern expressed on both sides of the House about the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, the Stalker-Sampson report and the necessity for an inquiry, and the state of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which we tried to support when the Prime Minister announced it in the first place. Those matters must be debated soon in the House. That is clearly the underlying feeling of almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes his speech, will he give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has already finished.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): As one would expect, this has been a vigorous debate. When deciding what weight to give to the criticism that has been voiced by Labour Members, it is as well to keep in mind the fact that the powers that we are discussing were first introduced by the Labour party in 1974. They were reenacted in 1976 by the Labour party, which was two years after the Birmingham bombing. I assume that that was then its mature policy.
It is desirable to keep in mind the fact that the powers that we are describing were described by the then Labour Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). He said:
Unpleasant as are the powers contained in the Act, they are, in my view, necessary in order to prevent the far more serious consequences of terrorist violence." — [Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1520.]
That was the considered view of the then Labour Home Secretary.
Interestingly, there has been a debate in another place tonight and support for the renewal of this Act was voiced by two former Labour Ministers who have played an important part in these matters — the right hon. and noble Lord Mason, who is a former Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the noble Lord Harris, who is a former Minister of State, Home Office.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to quote from a debate in another place?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister is not quoting directly; no breach of order has been committed.

Mr. Hogg: Almost every person who has had responsibility for dealing with these matters supports the implementation and renewal of these provisions. Essentially, it is only those who have never had personal responsibility for the implementation of these matters who have sought to criticise them.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman under any circumstances.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. I have made the position plain.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Hogg: The next question that we must ask—

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. The Minister has made it clear that at the moment he is not giving way.

Mr. Hogg: The next question that we must ask is what these provisions are about and what kind of conduct the Labour party is proposing to make lawful. We should also ask what safeguards and defences the Labour party proposes that we should discard.
Let us first look at sections 1 and 2. They are designed to render unlawful — to make a criminal offence — membership of or active support for either the IRA or the INLA. One matter on which we can all agree is that the IRA and the INLA are organisations whose avowed policies necessarily involve and include the killing and wounding of countless individuals. Membership of those organisations should be an offence. Active support for those organisations should be an offence. What is the Labour party's position? The Opposition render lawful membership of the IRA and the INLA in this country. They also propose to render lawful the giving of money to those two organisations. That is the inevitable and, I expect, the intended consequence of their policy as enunciated today. We need to be plain about this, because the country will want to know that the Labour party proposes to make lawful activities that most people regard as wholly deplorable.
I come now to part II of the Act, which is concerned with exclusion orders.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is saying that the Labour party is attempting and wants to make the IRA legal. I have never heard that uttered at any time or in any place. If the Minister—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. He must therefore seek to intervene to correct the position.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman putting a new point of order?

Mr. Bermingham: Is it in order for comments to be made in the House that clearly have no basis in truth, and then for hon. Members to be ruled out of order—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen are raising points of debate, not points of order.

Mr. Hogg: It is emerging either that the Labour party is extremely uncomfortable with its policy, or that it does not understand it.
Let me make plain what all this is about. Sections 1 and 2 of the Act have the effect of making it unlawful to be a member of the IRA or the INLA. They also make it unlawful to subscribe to those organisations. The Labour party proposes to repeal the two sections. That means it is proposing to make lawful membership of, and financial subscriptions to, the IRA and INLA, whose policy is murder and treason. That is the Labour party's policy, and the Opposition are not in a position to deny it, although they may find it extremely uncomfortable.
Let us now examine the exclusion orders. I fancy that the Opposition will find the debate on them as uncomfortable as they found the debate on sections 1 and 2 of the Act. If the exclusion orders were right in principle between 1974 and 1979, it is extremely difficult to see why they can be wrong in principle today. Practical criticism is one thing; practical objection is another. But to denounce in principle the policies to which the Labour party committed itself for six or seven years is a bizarre proposition that appeals to no one but the Labour party. So the question is twofold—

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I do not propose to give way. The Labour party will have to face up to its policies and the right hon. Gentleman is not going to divert me by getting to his feet.
There are two questions. First, is the exclusion order—

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Hogg: No. I have two minutes more and I propose to proceed.
Is the exclusion order necessary and in the public interest? Secondly, is the exclusion order, if used, used in a fair and reasonable manner? On the latter point Lord Colville made it plain that he thought that the powers were being used in a fair and reasonable manner. He wanted to stop the use of those powers—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, he did, but he also explained the powerful arguments in favour of keeping them. Those arguments are to be found in his report. The first is that the police service strongly supports the continued existence of the powers. Secondly, Lord Colville expressly states that the police do not have the power to mount surveillance on terrorists who come into the country. Thirdly, he states that the powers are extremely useful in disrupting terrorist lines of communications and disrupting their supply of arms, ammunition and explosives. Those are the positive conclusions of the report.

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does not "Erskine May" state that when someone goes mad at the Dispatch Box that person is out of order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am quite familiar with "Erskine May".

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 162.

Division No. 184]
[11.56 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Aitken, Jonathan
Gregory, Conal


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Amess, David
Grist, Ian


Amos, Alan
Ground, Patrick


Arbuthnot, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Ashby, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Ashdown, Paddy
Hanley, Jeremy


Aspinwall, Jack
Hannam, John


Atkins, Robert
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Atkinson, David
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Harris, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hawkins, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Hayes, Jerry


Batiste, Spencer
Hayward, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Beith, A. J.
Heddle, John


Bellingham, Henry
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Benyon, W.
Hind, Kenneth


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Holt, Richard


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hordern, Sir Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howard, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Boswell, Tim
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bottomley, Peter
Howells, Geraint


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bowis, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Irvine, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Jack, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jackson, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Janman, Tim


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Jessel, Toby


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Key, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
Kilfedder, James


Burt, Alistair
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Butcher, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butler, Chris
Knapman, Roger


Butterfill, John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Knox, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lang, Ian


Carrington, Matthew
Latham, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Cartwright, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Cash, William
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Chope, Christopher
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lightbown, David


Colvin, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
McCrindle, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dover, Den
Maclean, David


Durant, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Emery, Sir Peter
Madel, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Malins, Humfrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Marland, Paul


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Hon Francis


Gill, Christopher
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miller, Hal





Mills, Iain
Speed, Keith


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Sir Hector
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Mudd, David
Stevens, Lewis


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Sumberg, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Paice, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trotter, Neville


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Price, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raffan, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Redwood, John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wheeler, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitney, Ray


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Widdecombe, Ann


Rost, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Rowe, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Ryder, Richard
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Woodcock, Mike


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shersby, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Stephen Dorrell


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Allen, Graham
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clay, Bob


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Battle, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Margaret
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Tom


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Blair, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Blunkett, David
Darling, Alistair


Boyes, Roland
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bradley, Keith
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dixon, Don


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Buchan, Norman
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Buckley, George J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)






Fatchett, Derek
Meale, Alan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliott


Fyfe, Maria
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galbraith, Sam
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Murphy, Paul


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Neill, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Parry, Robert


Graham, Thomas
Patchett, Terry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grocott, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Radice, Giles


Heffer, Eric S.
Randall, Stuart


Henderson, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hinchliffe, David
Richardson, Jo


Holland, Stuart
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Home Robertson, John
Rogers, Allan


Hood, Jimmy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheerman, Barry


Hume, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ingram, Adam
Short, Clare


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lamond, James
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Leighton, Ron
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Litherland, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


Livingstone, Ken
Stott, Roger


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McAllion, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McAvoy, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Vaz, Keith


McFall, John
Wall, Pat


McGrady, Eddie
Walley, Joan


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKelvey, William
Wareing, Robert N.


McLeish, Henry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McTaggart, Bob
Wilson, Brian


McWilliam, John
Winnick, David


Madden, Max
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Worthington, Tony


Mallon, Seamus
Wray, Jimmy


Marek, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Maxton, John
Mr. Allen Adams.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

Dr. Frank Skuse

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean].

Mr. Chris Mullin: This is the first of what I hope will be a series of Adjournment debates on different aspects of the case against the six innocent men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. During these debates, I shall take the opportunity to explore areas that were not touched on in the recent hearing before the Court of Appeal and I hope that in due course this material may be used as the basis for reopening the case.
Tonight I will deal with Dr. Frank Skuse, the forensic scientist whose evidence above all helped to convict these unfortunate men. It is already a matter of record that Dr. Skuse was an incompetent scientist. Indeed, that is why in October 1985 the Home Office ordered his compulsory retirement at the grand old age of 51. The evidence he gave at the original trial has been utterly discredited, so much so that the judges at the recent Court of Appeal were obliged to set aside his evidence, even though they upheld the convictions.
I shall not dwell on Dr. Skuse's incompetence as a scientist. I go further and allege that Dr. Skuse also conspired with police officers to pervert the course of justice, and I shall provide the factual basis for that assertion.
At the time of the Birmingham pub bombings, Dr. Skuse was a scientific officer based at the Home Office forensic laboratory at Chorley in Lancashire. Five of the six convicted men were arrested at the port of Heysham a few hours after the bombs exploded. They were taken to Morecambe police station. Dr. Skuse was telephoned at his home in Wigan shortly after midnight and asked to come as quickly as possible to Morecambe to test the men's hands for explosives.
He was called by Sergeant Ray Paton, the police liaison officer at the Chorley laboratory. Sergeant Paton drove to Wigan to collect Dr. Skuse, and together they returned to the laboratory at Chorley, where Skuse collected his hand-swabbing kit, which was already packed, and they then went on to Morecambe, a total journey of just over 40 miles on roads with little traffic.
According to Dr. Skuse, they arrived at around 3.30 in the morning. It is puzzling why this journey should have taken the best part of three hours, since in the same statement Dr. Skuse estimates that the return journey from Morecambe to Chorley, made in daytime traffic, took only 45 minutes.
At about the same time as Dr. Skuse alleges he arrived, a party of west midlands detectives led by Superintendent George Reade reached Morecambe. Dr. Skuse and Mr. Reade had never met before that night. They have, however, since formed a close relationship which has endured for 13 years—a subject to which I shall return. Dr. Skuse invites us to believe that, having arrived at Morecambe, he did not commence his tests until 5·50 am. Just how he filled in the intervening 2 hours and 20 minutes is unclear. It is unclear also how there could be any possible reason for the delay, since the police were extremely anxious to know the results of Dr. Skuse's tests.
Dr. Skuse and Sergeant Paton installed themselves in the medical room in the cell block of Morecambe police station. The west midlands detectives were, initially at


least, confined to the CID offices on the first floor. They were, understandably perhaps, in view of what had happened in Birmingham, in a state of great agitation. They at first insisted on immediate access to the prisoners. Very properly, this was refused by Chief Superintendent Ibison, the senior Lancashire detective. I am told by an officer who was present that this led to a blazing row between Reade and Ibison, but to begin with at least Mr. Ibison held his ground.
Dr.Skuse says that he commenced testing the hands of the five men at 5.50 am. At their trial the men testified that they believed that the tests had commenced much earlier, at around 3 or 4 in the morning. This was necessarily only an estimate since they had no watches, but, as we shall see, there were a number of people who did have watches and who support their evidence.
According to his timings, Dr. Skuse obtained his first positive test from the hand of Billy Power at around 7 o'clock in the morning. He obtained another positive from Paddy Hill by around 7.30. There then occurs a lengthy gap in the times offered by Dr. Skuse, who claims that he did not see the next prisoner, Johnny Walker, until 8.55 and that he carried out a further test on Paddy Hill after 9 am. At the recent appeal hearing, Dr. Skuse explained the gap by saying that he ran out of ether and had to send out for more from a local chemist, Mr. John Rayner. Mr. Rayner, he said, had arrived at between 8.15 and 8.30 am. Mr. Rayner, however, told the court that he delivered the ether to Morecambe police station at between 5 and 6 in the morning. He was quite definite about this. The Appeal Court judges chose to explain this difference away as a lapse of memory on Mr. Rayner's part, but Mr. Rayner is not alone in his recollection.
What is not disputed, even on Dr. Skuse's controversial timings, is that by around 7 in the morning word of Dr. Skuse's positive findings had reached the west midlands detectives, who were anxiously pacing up and down on the first floor. From that moment onwards, they honestly believed that the men downstairs were the Birmingham pub bombers. Although he had no business to be so, Dr. Skuse was absolute in his certainty. There was, he testified later, a 99 per cent. chance that those men had recently handled nitro-glycerine.
At around 7 am or earlier, the Lancashire police surrendered control over the cell block in Morecambe police station to Superintendent Reade and his men, who commenced a series of fantastic assaults in an effort, which was successful, to extract confessions from the men who they sincerely believed, on the basis of what Dr. Skuse had told them, had recently handled nitro-glycerine.
I do not suggest that Dr. Skuse or Sergeant Paton witnessed or overheard these assaults. I do, however, say that, whether or not Dr. Skuse knew of the violence, he is a party to the elaborate web of fraud and perjury to which Superintendent Reade and his men had to resort in order to cover up the assaults.
The official story is that the Lancashire police, under Superintendent Ibison, conducted an orderly handover of the prisoners at 9.30 am. Patently, that is nonsense. Sergeant Ronald Buckley, the officer in charge of the cells at Morecambe, almost let the cat out of the bag at the original trial. He testified that west midlands detectives were already interviewing the prisoners in the cell block when he came on duty at around 7 am. It was not just a slip of the tongue; his evidence on this point covered a whole page of the transcript and lasted several minutes. He

only climbed back on board the official version of the events when the judge, Lord Bridge, came, as he sc often did, to the aid of the prosecution and hinted to Sergeant Buckley that his memory might be faulty. However, 13 years later Mr. Buckley still sticks by his story. Interviewed by the Devon and Cornwall police on 13 May last year, he again insisted that west midlands detectives were interviewing the prisoners when he came on duty at about 7 o'clock. He repeated this knowing the implication and knowing — indeed, it was put to him — that Superintendent Ibison, his superior officer at the time, was still saying something quite different.
Inspector Ken Brown was another Lancashire officer on duty that night. He was on duty until 6 am. When I contacted him two years ago, he told me: "My recollection is that Skuse had a positive by the time I went home, although I wouldn't swear to it." If Inspector Brown's recollection is correct, Dr. Skuse must have commenced his tests at least an hour earlier than the time to which he admits.
Sergeant Paton, who drove Dr. Skuse to and from Morecambe police station, can also assist with inquiries. He was not called to give evidence, either at the original trial or at the recent appeal. If the times have been rejigged, he must know. When Sergeant Paton was interviewed last year at his home in Preston by detectives from the Devon and Cornwall police force, he gave two statements. The first, dated 26 March, said that he and Dr. Skuse had arrived at Morecambe at around 1.30 am, two hours earlier than Dr. Skuse claimed.
The Devon and Cornwall police, having taken the statement from Sergeant Paton, went to see Dr. Skuse, who gave them the official version of events, flatly contradicting his driver, Sergeant Paton. So the Devon and Cornwall police went to see Sergeant Paton again and refreshed his memory. His memory suitably refreshed, Sergeant Paton clambered back on board. He signed a second statement, agreeing that he had arrived at 3.30 and not, as he said originally, 1.30. The Devon and Cornwall police were kind enough not to pursue how he came to be so far adrift, nor indeed how he had managed to spin out a 45-minute journey to the best part of three hours.
I come now to Dr. Skuse. It is now established beyond doubt that he was an incompetent scientist. Even the Home Office now accepts that. He was sacked on the grounds of what the Home Office coyly call limited efficiency". It is also established beyond doubt, although the Home Office has yet to own up to this, that Dr. Skuse's limited efficiency dates back to at least 1975, the year he gave his now discredited evidence at the original trial.
What I am suggesting today is something rather more serious than incompetence, and has nothing to do with Dr. Skuse's credibility as a scientist. I say that Dr. Sk use has conspired over a long period with Superintendent George Reade to rearrange the timing of events in Morecambe police station to cover up the fact that west midlands detectives had access to the prisoners several hours earlier than has so far been admitted and that, during that time, they commenced a ferocious programme of violence which led to the extraction of false confessions.
That is why Dr. Skuse and Mr. Reade, who had never met before that night and who live 80 miles from each other, are still so closely in touch after 13 years. That is why they liaised with particular care during the recent appeal and that is why Mr. Reade has stoutly championed Dr. Skuse's claim that he has been unfairly dismissed by


the Home Office. Reade needs Skuse's silence if what happened to those men in police custody is to continue to be concealed.
The four days which Dr. Skuse spent in the witness box at the Old Bailey in November must have been particularly nerve-wracking for George Reade. If Skuse had been caught out on timing—he was caught out many times on scientific matters— Reade would have been in deep trouble. If Sergeant Paton had broken ranks and testified along the lines of his first statement, the game also would have been up.
At the recent appeal hearing, it emerged that Dr. Skuse kept no contemporaneous note of the times at which he carried out the tests. Indeed, he kept very few notes of any kind. He did not even record the chemical formula he had used. It emerged also that Dr. Skuse had taken it upon himself to alter the times noted by Sergeant Paton by 10 or 15 minutes. He had done this without telling Sergeant Paton. He did it, he said, at the suggestion of Superintendent Ibison. He denied that he had done it at the suggestion of Superintendent Reade, even though it was pointed out that the new times matched Reade's not Ibison's.
While an alteration of 10 or 15 minutes is not directly relevant to the charge I am making—that the times were adjusted by several hours—it establishes that Dr. Skuse, far from being an impartial scientist, was prepared to change his evidence at the suggestion of a police officer. I do not dwell on this.
Central to the allegation I am making is the relationship that has developed between George Reade and Frank Skuse over the past 13 years. When I and a colleague from Granada Television called unannounced at George Reade's home in Rugeley, Staffordshire, two years ago, he said:
I know you lads were about. Frank Skuse told me.
That was before any of the recent controversy became public. Dr. Skuse had not telephoned to alert Mr. Reade to our investigation. He had taken the trouble to drive 80 miles to Rugeley to alert Mr. Reade in person.
Over the following 18 months, as Dr. Skuse's difficulties with the Home Office increased, George Reade became a champion of Skuse's cause. He took Skuse to see his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whom I hold in the highest regard. Reade even wrote on Dr. Skuse's behalf to the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir Brian Cubbon. I submit that George Reade did not do this out of the kindness of his heart. He did it because he needed Skuse's silence and he was worried that an embittered Dr. Skuse might blurt out the truth.
At the recent appeal hearing, Frank Skuse and George Reade were both important witnesses. Skuse was in the witness box for more than four days. Witnesses are not supposed to discuss their evidence with each other or anyone else while the case is proceeding. Indeed, that very point was made to Dr. Skuse by the Lord Chief Justice.
I am reliably informed that Dr. Skuse, on more than one occasion, while the case was proceeding, telephoned former Sergeant Ray Paton in Preston and discussed the case with him at length. Mr. Paton was the man who drove Dr. Skuse to Morecambe. His silence is also needed to corroborate Dr. Skuse's unlikely time schedule.
I further believe—and I challenge Dr. Skuse to deny —that, while the appeal was proceeding, Frank Skuse was regularly in touch by telephone with George Reade, the other principal Crown witness.
I go further. On Sunday 29 November, shortly after Skuse and Reade had completed their evidence, but while the case was still being heard and they were both technically witnesses, liable to be recalled at any time, an ITN journalist, Mr. Chris Jameson, called unannounced at Reade's house. Who should open the door? It was none other than Frank Skuse. Frank Skuse was there, in George Reade's house, while the appeal was still being heard.
Skuse and Reade are the villains of this terrible affair. Dr. Skuse, unwittingly perhaps, provided the false scientific evidence. Mr. Reade provided the confessions and they have conspired together ever since.
Giving judgment in the Appeal Court on 28 January, Lord Justice Lane said:
It is inevitable that the allegations made on behalf of the appellants would necessitate the active collaboration of Dr. Skuse.
That is exactly what I am alleging.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The allegations made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) appear to have been made with no evidence at all, for no evidence has been produced. They appear to represent a distortion both of any role that any of the people whom he has named under the cloak of parliamentary privilege might have had and of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Birmingham pub bombings case. The hon. Gentleman's attack on a member of the judiciary was totally inappropriate and wrong.
The defence had the opportunity to put before the court any evidence that it wished. The court gave the case careful consideration. It is not clear to me, nor to my hon. Friends, exactly what purpose the hon. Genetleman seeks to serve by using the cloak of parliamentary privilege to make entirely unsubstantiated allegations based on nothing more than his personal interpretation of some of the facts for which he has produced no evidence, even when he has been challenged. His attack on a member of the judiciary is entirely inappropriate for an hon. Member following the conventions of the House.
The hon. Gentleman has clearly not read the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case. He has distorted Dr. Skuse's role in the prosecution and chosen to ignore the corroboration that his evidence received at crucial points. The speech that the hon. Gentleman read at great speed, presumably as a trailer for a future book or television programme, was one of the worst and most wretched performances that I have ever heard in the House of Commons.
I shall give a few facts about the retirement of Dr. Frank Skuse, who, along with members of the judiciary and others, has been subjected to attacks by the hon. Gentleman under the cloak of parliamentary privilege.
Dr. Skuse joined the Home Office forensic science service in 1963 at the age of 28. After six years service he was promoted in 1969 to the next grade of principal scientific officer. It was in that grade that he passed the remainder of his career in the forensic science service. Over these years he developed a particular interest in arson and explosives. Throughout the 1970s Dr. Skuse's career followed a normal pattern, with him gaining experience in


the matters in which he had developed his particular interests. It is unremarkable, therefore, that among the cases he handled was one that later became known as that of the Birmingham bombers. Dr. Skuse's career continued on these lines until the early 1980s, when his managers noted some falling off in his performance as a principal scientific officer.
It was that deterioration in performance, noted in a number of staff reports—[Interruption.] I am giving the facts and the evidence. I am not making unsubstantiated and wild allegations. That deterioration in performance led to an invitation to Dr. Skuse to consider early retirement. At the same time, it was made clear to Dr. Skuse that in view of his current performance the Department was bound to make moves to secure his compulsory retirement on grounds of limited efficiency. "Grounds of limited efficiency" is a perfectly ordinary term of art that is used in the Civil Service across all Departments. It is not something to be sneered at.

Dr. John Reid: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: No, I shall certainly not give way.
In the event, in June 1985 Dr. Skuse agreed to take voluntary retirement. That is a fact rather than an allegation or an unsubstantiated, wild statement, such as we have heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. There was some discussion with Dr. Skuse about whether he should retire at the end of October or early in November. That also is a fact. In a letter dated 23 July 1985 he was told that his last day of service would be 31 October 1985.
The chronological sequence that I have just described makes it absolutely clear that the question of limited efficiency that led to the retirement of Dr. Skuse related to his performance in the period to his retirement in 1985, and certainly not to the work that he had done as long ago as 1975.
It has been demonstrated, therefore, that there was no connection between Dr. Skuse's retirement and the case of the Birmingham bombings. However, the Department, as a matter of prudence, has reviewed Dr. Skuse's earlier work on a number of occasions. The most comprehensive review was one made by the then director of the Chorley forensic science laboratory, Mr. George Walker, in 1984 and 1985, at the request of the controller of the forensic science service. Mr. Walker used all the available records at the laboratory. These covered Dr. Skuse's written evidence in some 350 cases, dating back not just to 1975, but to 1966. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not seem to be interested in the facts and in the evidence. They are interested only in wild and unsubstantiated allegations.
Mr. Walker concluded that his investigations had not brought to light any case where Dr. Skuse had misreported facts, had been biased in his reports, or had been negligent in his work. On the basis of his investigations, Mr. Walker did not consider that he had any grounds for suspecting that Dr. Skuse's work had led to any miscarriage of justice. Leaving on one side the case of the Birmingham bombers, nothing emerged from these reviews that called into serious doubt convictions reached in cases where Dr. Skuse gave evidence.
I should make it absolutely clear that, following the normal conventions of the House, neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home

Department consider it right to comment in any way on the evidence given at the appeal hearing or on the judgment handed down by the court. What I can say is that the Court of Appeal had laid before it the facts and arguments about Dr. Skuse's evidence. It went over ground raised at the trial.
At the appeal hearing, seven says were spent on the issue. The hon. Gentleman said that Dr. Skuse gave evidence for four days. It was about the only fact that the hon. Gentleman referred to in his speech and even that was wrong. Dr. Skuse gave evidence, not for four days, but for three and a half days. If the hon. Gentleman wants to report facts to the House, he should at least take the trouble to make sure that he has got them right. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Gentleman cared about facts. Clearly he does not. He undermines the basis of his own arguments by his cavalier attitude to facts and his reliance on allegations and suppositions. There has been a clear opportunity for any issues or arguments about the scientific evidence in the Birmingham bombings case to be raised. After long and careful deliberation the Court of Appeal gave its judgment. As my right hon. Friend has made plain, he cannot now, in the absence of any indications from the court that he should do so, intervene in these convictions. It is not for him to seek to pass further judgment, quite rightly. He is not a court of law; nor am I; nor, in the strict sense, if I may say so, is the House.
What about the issue of further reviews of Dr. Skuse's cases? We have, of course, looked at what the court had to say in its judgment. Our understanding is that the judgment has not shown any grounds for casting doubt on Dr. Skuse's scientific work in general or in other specific cases. The position in cases in which Dr. Skuse gave evidence is the same as in any other contested criminal case that resulted in a conviction. If any new evidence or any new consideration—I emphasise the word "new" — is brought to our attention that casts doubt on the accuracy of the evidence—whether that of Dr. Skuse or any other witness—or on the safety of the conviction, we would think it right to review the case, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has shown himself very ready to do.
As with the Birmingham case, the decision for my right hon. Friend would be whether or not he found that there were grounds that would justify his referring the case to the Court of Appeal. We therefore have no present plans to subject criminal cases on which Dr. Skuse worked to further review. As I have said, however, we would clearly be ready to consider reviewing and intervening in any particular case where some new evidence or new consideration of substance that cast doubt on the safety of the conviction came to light.

Mr. Tony Benn: rose—

Mr. Patten: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, as I have only two minutes in which to conclude my remarks on the case.

Mr. Benn: This is an important point.

Mr. Patten: I can see no justification for giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. I must return to the starting point of the Adjournment rather than deal with a number of allegations for which no evidence has been produced.
I believe that I have shown conclusively that the circumstances of the Birmingham bombings, and therefore


the issue of Dr. Skuse's retirement, have been fully addressed in my remarks to the House tonight in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment motion.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if there is a moment. I have listened to the Minister with interest. He has totally failed to meet the points made by my hon. Friend about established collusion between two witnesses appearing before the court. I ask him, before the debate ends, to say that he will investigate the points made by my hon. Friend, who has devoted a lot of effort to proving what most people now believe to be the case, namely, that the Birmingham six are innocent and that the only reason that their appeal was turned down was that if it had been upheld the British judiciary at a very high level, and the police, would have been brought into disrepute.
The Minister, in replying to my hon. Friend, has totally failed to address some of the most serious allegations that I have heard made in the House. Those reading the report of this debate in Hansard will draw the conclusion that the Minister, too, is covering up for the judiciary and the police.

Mr. Patten: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must ask the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to withdraw those last remarks. They are totally unparliamentary and unacceptable.

Mr. Benn: Madam Deputy Speaker, I said that those reading the report of the debate in Hansard would be driven to the conclusion that the Minister was covering up for decisions that had been taken elsewhere.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is those remarks that I ask the right hon. Member to withdraw. I plead with him. They are totally unacceptable to me in the Chair tonight, and unacceptable to the House. I ask him to consider and to withdraw them now.

Mr. Benn: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am an old Member of the House and I ask you what is unparliamentary about accusing the Government of covering up, because that is precisely the charge.

Mr. Patten: Withdraw!

Mr. Benn: "Covering up" is a charge that I have heard used regularly in many years of debates in the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand when the right hon. Gentleman says that he is a long-standing Member of the House, but he is making a personal attack on the Minister tonight, which I believe is totally unjustified, and I ask him to withdraw those remarks at this stage.

Mr. Benn: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bow to your ruling, but I must say that if the charge is objectionable because it relates to the Minister, I must claim that the Government, who are responsible to the House, are covering up for what happened in the police and the judiciary.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Those remarks I can accept, but there must be no aspersions in the House against a Minister. Criticism of the Government is perfectly justified in the House, but it must not be made against any individual Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.